JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 16731 of 1990, 8554, 3575, 4100, 4439, 7470 and 6302 of 1991, in which the challenge has been held out to a Scheme known as Town Planning Scheme in respect of unbuilt area No. 2 Part No. 1 at Bhatinda contained in Annexure P-10, as petitions regarding the acquisition of various pieces of land for widening the existing road from 20 feet to 100 feet at Bhatinda. 2. The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the point in issue are being taken Civil Writ Petition No. 16731 of 1990. 3. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are owners of the land and the buildings constructed thereon, which are sought to be acquired for carrying out the aforesaid project. The petitioners claim that they had some to know about this Scheme when the employees of respondent No. 1 Committee had made measurement of the buildings of the petitioners and had told them, upon an inquiry, that the buildings of the petitioners were to be demolished for widening the existing road from 20 feet to 100 feet. Further inquiries had revealed that the respondent-Committee, vide order No. 297 dated 6.12.1988, had proposed to acquire the buildings constructed on 20 feet wide road for widening it from 20 feet to 100 feet. The respondent-Committee had, vide letter dated 14.6.1990, requested the Government to acquire the land, upon which the State Government had raised a query that as to why no arrangements had been made earlier for the purpose of widening the road upto 100 feet. 4. In reply, the Committee had, vide its letter dated 22.8.1990 stated that at the time of framing of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Part-1, the Divisional Town Planner had proposed for widening the road from 20 feet to 100 feet and it was sanctioned by the State Government on 9.9.1983. The plan attached with the proposal to acquire the land was a part of this sanctioned scheme. 5. The grouse of the petitioners is that instead of acquiring their buildings as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act), the Committee, under the pre text of Town Planning Scheme, claims that it can acquire 25% area of an owner without payment of compensation. 5. The grouse of the petitioners is that instead of acquiring their buildings as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act), the Committee, under the pre text of Town Planning Scheme, claims that it can acquire 25% area of an owner without payment of compensation. The petitioners further stated that their request to the Committee not to demolish their buildings or to dispossess them except in accordance with the provisions of the Act had not been acceded to by the respondent-Committee and the Committee was threatening to demolish the premises if the petitioners do not vacate them within a week, which had occasioned the necessity of filing these petitions. 6. In the petitions, the main ground on which the Town Planning Scheme, on the basis of which the respondent-Committee seeks to acquire the property in dispute, is being assailed is the projected difference between the Town Planning Scheme and the building scheme which is drawn up under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act. According to the petitioners, though the respondent-Committee is trying to bring the acquisition under the purview of Town Planning Scheme but since on the land, which is sought to be acquired buildings existed, the acquisition will have to be made either in pursuance of a building scheme or under the provisions of the Act and as such an acquisition would disentitle the government from taking 25% of the acquired land free, the Town Planning Scheme, which is sought to be acted upon will have to be set aside. 7. On behalf of the respondents, the factual averments, on the basis of whereof, the petitioners are approaching this Court, are not challenged. It is with regard to the legal submissions alone that some reservation was shown both in the pleadings as well as by the learned counsel during the submissions made by him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent- Committee that the submission of the petitioners with regard to difference between the Town Planning Scheme and the Building Scheme is too far fetched for there is nothing in the definition of the Town Planning which would debar the State Government from acquiring even that land, on which some construction had already been raised. In view of this, while putting forth in the forefront of the omnibus argument that there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in any case since acquisition was being made for a public purpose and the project had already been implemented, this Court would not permit the petitioners to stall the acquisition any further and if the writ petitions were to be allowed, it would dispose of the same in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Raj Kumar Johri and others, AIR 1992 SC 1538. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments and upon perusing the record, I feel that the distinction sought to be brought out between the land acquired under the Building Scheme framed by the respondent-Committee or under the provisions of the Act and Town Planning Scheme framed under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 cannot be ignored inasmuch as in acquisition carried out pursuant to Town Planning Scheme, the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda can acquire the unbuilt land and while doing so, would be required to pay compensation only for 75% of the land acquired but in the case of a Building Scheme, there is no such restriction and the respondent-Committee can even acquire land on which buildings are existing but while doing so, it would not be entitled to get 25% of the acquired land free and the compensation will have to be evaluated as per the Act, In this case, the respondents are admittedly relying upon the Notification of the Government regarding the Town Planning Scheme for carrying out acquisition of the land in dispute and on the basis of the Town Planning Scheme it endeavours to get 25% of the land so acquired without payment of any compensation. While doing so, the respondents evidently have not taken into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners regarding the existence of the buildings on their land. If this be true the land sought to be acquired would be taken out of the purview of the Town Planning Scheme already framed by the Municipal Committee. While doing so, the respondents evidently have not taken into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners regarding the existence of the buildings on their land. If this be true the land sought to be acquired would be taken out of the purview of the Town Planning Scheme already framed by the Municipal Committee. It will either have to frame a Building Scheme or acquire the land as per the provisions of the Act, which procedure would did entitle the respondent-Committee to get 25% of the land acquired without paying any compensation. Since this inquiry has not been gone into by the respondents, these petitions will have to be allowed with the observation that it will be open to the respondent-Committee to acquire the land by paying full compensation as per the provisions of the Building Scheme and the Act. While doing so, since the proceedings for acquisition have bent stayed at the behest of the petitioners, who have been able to stall the same for over 11 years, I feel that the respondents should be allowed to acquire the land as per the prices prevalent at the time of the framing of the Town Planning Scheme as has been observed in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikarans case (supra). 9. With the aforesaid observations, these petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents to complete the procedure of acquisition of land in case they want to proceed with the same within six months from the receipt of a copy of this order. Petitions allowed.