IMPORTANT POINT
Under the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, the land should be deemed to have been vested in the State covered by the scheme free from all encumbrances, as soon as the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 71 is published.

ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the M.P. High Court made on April 19, 1994 in Misc. Petition No. 885/87. The admitted facts are that Town improvement Scheme No. 54 was framed under the provisions of th M.P. town Improvement Trust Act (for short, Trust Act ). The Scheme consists of 629.43 acres of land situated in Indore of which 4.85 acres is the subject matter in this appeal. The Government had sanctioned this scheme under Section 54 of the Act. On September 16, 1966, the scheme was published in the State Gazette under Section 52(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is a conclusive evidence that the scheme was framed and sanction was duly granted by the Government. In other words, it has given conclusiveness to the public purpose. The Government under Section 70 of the Act accorded sanction for the acquisition of the land. Notification under Section 70(1) of the Act was published on August 22, 1973. Consequently, by operation of Section 71(2) of the Act, the land on and from the date of such publication, stood vested absolutely in the trust free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) gives power to the trust to give notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof, to the trust or to any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. In case the person in possession does not surrender or refuses to deliver possession, under sub-section (4), the trust has been empowered to take possession of the land and for that purpose cause such force to be used as may be necessary to take possession of the land.

3. The respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the acquisition on the ground that since possession was not taken from them, the land did not vest in the State and, therefore, the scheme had failed. The High Court in the impugned order relving upon the scheme in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the Act ), in particular Section 16 thereof and in view of the cases decided in that behalf, held that since possession was not taken, the scheme has lapsed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

4. It is contended by Shri A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that the scheme had lapsed on failure to take possession of the land. He has specifically drawn our attention to Section 71(2) of the Trust Act. Shri Bachhawat, learned senior counsel for the respondent, now sought to place reliance, though not pressed in the High Court, on Section 54 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, the Adhiniyam ). It is contended that if the scheme is not commenced within a period of two years or completed within a period of five years from the date of the final notification, the final scheme under Section 50 on expiry of the said period shall stand lapsed. Accordingly, it is contended that the scheme is no longer in existence. He also contended that though the land stands vested in the State on the publication of the notification under Section 70(2) of the Trust Act until possession is actually taken the vesting is not complete and, therefore, by operation of Section 54 of the 1973 Adhiniyam, the possession cannot be taken. He also contends that under Section 56 of 1973 Adhiniyam, until the agreement is arrived at between the parties, on expiry of the period of three years from the date of the notification under Section 52 of the Trust Act, if the Town Development Scheme under Section 50 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 has not been implemented within three years therefrom, it shall stand lapsed. On requisition by the Trust and acceptance thereof by the Government, appropriate procedure under the Act shall be pursued and compensation paid. In this case, that procedure was not adopted. Therefo