The expression poorer and working classes contemplated by sub-cl. (c) of Cl. (A) of sub-section (1) Section 277 refers to such indigent and working people who need accommodation and cannot on their own make arrangements for reasonable accommodation.

Judgement

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, allowing the writ petition of the respondent and quashing certain notifications and an order of the Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur.

2. The appellant, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Jabalpur, hereinafter called the Corporation, applied to the Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur, for acquiring certain land in March 1959. It had power to acquire land under the provisions of S. 291 of the City of Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1948 (C. P. and Berar Act III of 1950), hereinafter called the Act, for carrying out any of the purposes mentioned in Chapter XXIII of Part VI of the Act, which deals with improvement schemes relating to lands, buildings and streets.

3. The respondent was served with a notice issued to him by the Land Acquisition Officer. He filed an objection questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. The objection was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer by order, dated June 22, 1960, one of the orders which has been quashed by the High Court. The other notifications quashed were issued in view of certain other provisions of the Act. The first of these is the notification dated June 12, 1956, purporting to be issued under S. 277 (1) (B) (i) of the Act. Another is the notification dated July 26, 1956, under S. 281 (1) of the Act and the third was a notification issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh on January 7, 1959, in pursuance of the provisions contained in S. 285 (1) (a) and (b).

4. The order of the High Court quashing the various notifications and the order of the Land Acquisition Officer is based on the ground that the first notification dated 12, 1956, was invalid as the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation had no power under the Act to prepare an improvement scheme known as the Lay Out Behind the Telegraph Workshop Scheme of the Corporation, as the scheme was not for any of the purposes mentioned in S. 277. Section 277 empowers the Chief Executive Officer, with the approval of the Corporation, to draw up a notification stating that the Chief Executive Officer shall make an improvement scheme of the area to which the resolution relates and naming the place where a map of the area may be seen at all reasonable hours and to publish the notification in the mode prescribed and to proceed to make a draft improvement scheme and to submit the same to the Improvements Committee for approval. The purposes for which the improvement scheme can be prepared are mentioned in clauses (A) and (B) of sub-s. (1) Clause (A) mentions three purposes for the improvement scheme and one of these is mentioned in sub-cl. (c) and is the necessity to provide for the construction of buildings for the accommodation of the poorer and working classes. Clause (B) authorizes the preparation of an improvement scheme when the Chief Executive Officer considers it expedient to form new or to alter existing streets including bridges, causeways and culverts in any part of the city for the purposes mentioned in that clause, one of the purpose being to provide building sites for the expansion of the city.

5. The first notification, dated June 12, 1956, purported to be issued under. 277 (1) (B) (i). The respondent contested its validity on the ground that the purpose behind the impugned scheme was not the forming of new or the altering of existing streets under Cl. (B) and that, therefore, the notification was bad.

6. The appellant appears to have seen the force in the contention for the respondent and tried to support the validity of the scheme on the ground that it had been framed to provide for the construction of buildings for the accommodation of the poorer and working classes. The precise scheme was not produced before the High Court. It was however, there conceded that the scheme envisaged making available to persons of the middle class either plots for house building or houses bu