SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.K. MATHEW, V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
Laxmichand (In W. P. No. 517 of 1972) Hira Lal (In W.P. No. 240 of 1973) Petitioners
Versus
Indore Improvement Trust, Indore and others. (In both the Petns.). Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 517 of 1972 and 240 of 1973, D/- 24-2-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. V. Patel, Sr. Advocate (in W. P. No. 240/73), (M/s. S. P. Phadnis and S. K. Gambhir, .Advocates with him) for Petitioners (In both the Petns); Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate (for No. 1) (In W. P. No. 517/72), and Mr. S. M. Jain, Advocate (for Nos. 1-2) (In W.P. No. 240/73), for Respondents.
Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act 1960 - Section 46 (1) and 48 (1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 31 (2) - Applications against Scheme Sanctioned by Indore Improvement Trust - Attempt to acquire land of petitioner by sanctioning a scheme - Facts of Writ Petition may alone be sufficient - There was an earlier attempt to acquire land of petitioner by sanctioning a scheme but same was cancelled sometime - Petitioner personally wanted to develop his land for industrial purposes and with that end in view obtained No Objection Certificates from various Government Departments as well as from the Trust - Petitioner also succeeded in converting his patta from agricultural purpose to industrial purpose subject inter alia to limitation that construction work on land shall be carried out in accordance with plans sanctioned by same Improvement Trust - Later, however, petitioner found from a letter for Trust that a scheme was being approved for his land and other neighboring lands and Trust was unable to issue "No Objection Certificate" for development of his land on individual basis - Trust framed a Scheme No. 62 under Section 46 (1) of Act and published a notice to that effect in Gazette and in local newspapers in January 1965 - Scheme includes land of petitioner - Representations which the petitioner made against Scheme were of no avail - Trust served a notice upon petitioner under Section 48 (1) of Act proposing to acquire his land for purpose of Scheme – Held, In the entire scheme of the self-contained Act, in absence of a provision to authorise Tribunal to award interest, it is not possible to hold that it can award interest on the amount of compensation determined by Tribunal subsequent to the acquisition of the land - Petitioners are, therefore, right in their contention that this Act does not provide for awarding interest from date of taking possession of the property to the date of determination of compensation, which will always be on a later date under the provisions of Act - It is not possible for this Court to quash the acquisition in these cases in absence of a challenge of the vires of the provisions of Act - Then law being valid the attack will reverberate upon quantum of compensation, pure and simple - It is sufficient to point out that quantum of compensation which may be determined according to provisions of Act for acquisition of land cannot be challenged under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution - In that view of matter this submission of learned counsel also fails - Petitioner was well aware of the Scheme and submitted objections and representations, Section 52 (2) appears to be conclusive on question - That sub-section provides that the publication of notification by the State Government sanctioning the scheme shall be conclusive evidence that scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned - In view of this, ticklish skirmishes over publication on technical grounds at a distant date are completely out of place. The submission is devoid of merit - Writ Petitions dismissed.
Judgment
P. K. GOSWAMI, J.:- This Judgment will govern Writ Petitions Nos. 517 of 1972 and 240 of 1973.
2. The applications are directed against what is described as a Housing Accommodation Scheme sanctioned by the Indore Improvement Trust (briefly the Trust) under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act 1960 (briefly the Act). Brief facts of Writ Petition No. 517 of 1972 may alone be sufficient. There was an earlier attempt to acquire the land of the petitioner by sanctioning a scheme in July 1961 but the same was cancelled some time in September 1962. The petitioner personally wanted to develop his land for industrial purposes and with that end in view obtained No Objection Certificates from various Government Departments as well as from the Trust. The petitioner also succeeded in converting his patta from agricultural purpose to industrial purpose subject inter alia to the limitation that the construction work on the land shall be carried out in accordance with the plans sanctioned by the same Improvement Trust (Annexure G ). Later, however, the petitioner found from a letter for the Trust of October 26, 1964 that a scheme was being approved for his land and other neighbouring lands and, therefore, the Trust was unable to issue the "No Objection Certificate" for development of his land on individual basis. The Trust framed a Scheme No. 62 under Section 46 (1) of the Act and published a notice to that effect in the Gazette and in local newspapers in January 1965. The Scheme includes the land of the petitioner. The representations which the petitioner made against the Scheme were of no avail. The trust served a notice dated February 10, 1965, upon the petitioner under Section 48 (1) of the Act proposing to acquire his land for the purpose of the Scheme. The petitioner submitted his objections on April 15, 1965, stating inter alia that the land was being developed into industrial area and several small scale industries were functioning there and as such development was already in progress. It was also stated "that the land having been put to the use of industrial purposes could not be re-converted for the purposes of housing accommodation". It was further stated that the land was mortgaged to the State Bank for about Rs. 2 lakhs and the compensation that would be required to be paid by the Trust would be necessarily higher than in the case of other suitable vacant lands. The petitioner was given a hearing but ultimately the representations were rejected. The Trust duly applied to the State Government for sanction of the Scheme which was accorded on April 19, 1968, under Sec. 51 of the Act. The Trust published a notice dated July 12, 1968, under Sec. 68 (1) of the Act declaring its intention to acquire the land. The petitioner filed his objections under Section 68 (2) against the proposed acquisition of the land but these were rejected and the Trust obtained sanction of the State Government (respondent No. 2) to acquire the land under Sec. 70 of the Act. and the Notification was duly published on September 27, 1968. Thereafter the Trust published a Notification in the Government Gazette dated September 8, 1972, acquiring the said land and under Section 71 (2) of the Act the land vested absolutely with the Trust free from encumbrances from the date of the publication. Before the Trust could take possession of the petitioner s land, he filed the writ application under Art. 32 of the Constitution and obtained Rule Nisi and interim stay of dispossession was granted pending disposal of the matter.
3. The following are the common submissions made on behalf of the petitioners:
1. The Housing Accommodation Scheme is invalid because it does not specify the class of inhabitants for whom the same has been made.
2. The Scheme being a Housing Accommodation Scheme, it is for residential occupation only and it is not competent to include plans for industrial purposes.
3. Section 31 of the Act does not empower the Trust to frame a scheme
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.