COURT OF INDIA
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.
Administrator, Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri and another, Appellants
Versus
Ramji Lal Bagla and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 6537 of 1995, (arising out of S.L.P. (c) No. 1523 of 1985)
Decided on 26-7-1995
Owners Claim - Return of compensation - State of Haryana was issued proposing to acquire approximately of land within boundaries Municipality for implementing a scheme prepared Improvement Trust was published in Haryana Government Gazette scheme contained in Notification is an elaborate one- It is several parts- It sets out inter alia boundaries of land proposed to be acquired defines several expressions occurring in scheme states that area covered by scheme proposed to be acquired will be laid out and developed as indicated in zoning plan and lay out plan- It specifies several areas of land reserved for several general and special purposes mentioned therein contains "building restrictions type of building permitted-" It sets out elaborately conditions and requirements to be observed in construction of buildings titled Miscellaneous states that requirements of this schedule shall be addition to requirement of any by laws and Local Act- It also empowers Trust to relax any provision of Scheme with prior sanction Government –Held, Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Naval Singh Court have perused said decision very carefully and find that said decision does not deal with or take into consideration what according to us are several substantial and relevant factors- In our respectful opinion non-consideration of said aspects detracts from authority of said decision- It true is one of provisions which seeks to safeguard interest of owners of land required for executing schemes framed under Act but that does not mean that it must be given a meaning and content which it was never intended to comprehend and language whereof is totally inadequate to mean what is sought to be attributed - provision has to be read and understood in context of entire scheme of enactment- Court are therefore unable to agree with said decision and accordingly overrule - Certain other decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court have also been brought to our notice but court do not think it necessary to deal with all of them in light of conclusion arrived at hereinabove which court may reiterate is confined to situations where land has been acquired and title has vested in trust - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. :—Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents on the ground that the point raised in the writ petition is clearly covered in favour of the writ petitioners respondents by the ratio of the Full Bench decision of that Court in Nawal Singh v. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri, AIR 1984 Punj and Hary 61.
3. A notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) was issued proposing to acquire approximately 46.51 acres of land within the boundaries of Charkhi Dadri Municipality for implementing a scheme (No.1-B) prepared by Charkhi Dadri Improvement Trust under Section 24, read with Section 28(2) of the Act, It was published in the Haryana Government Gazette Part 1-A dated February 6, 1976. The scheme contained in the Notification is an elaborate one. It is in several parts. It sets out inter alia the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired. Part I defines several expressions occurring in the scheme. Part II states that the area (covered by the scheme) proposed to be acquired will be laid out and developed as indicated in the zoning plan and the lay out plan. It specifies the several areas of the land reserved for several general and special purposes mentioned therein. Part III contains "building restrictions, type of building permitted." It sets out elaborately the conditions and requirements to be observed in the construction of the buildings. Part IV, titled "Miscellaneous" states that the requirements of this schedule shall be in addition to the requirement of any by laws and Local Act. It also empowers the Trust to relax any provision of the Scheme with the prior sanction of the Government.
4. Pursuant to the above Notification/Scheme, proceedings were initiated for acquiring the requisite extent of the land and an award passed on November 3, 1976. The compensation determined under the award was also paid to the persons interested in the land acquired. Possession of the land was also taken by the Improvement Trust on January 19, 1977.
5. Section 44-A (added by the Haryana Legislature) of the Act provides that any scheme in respect of which a notification has been published under Section 42, shall be executed by the Trust within a period of five years from the date of such notification." The proviso to the Section however empowers the State Government to extend the said period if it is satisfied that for reasons beyond the control of the Trust, the scheme could not be executed within the said period of five years. Inasmuch as the aforesaid scheme 1-B could not be executed within the said period of five years, the Trust (Administrator Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri) applied for extension of the scheme up to 5th February, 1983. It appears that no orders were passed thereon by the Government.
6. On March 14, 1983 the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1542 of 1983 (from which the present appeal arises) for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the scheme aforesaid on the ground that the scheme not having been executed within the period of five years specified in Section 44-A, the scheme fails and is liable to be quashed. It was further prayed that the respondents to the writ petition (appellants in this appeal) be restrained from dispossessing the writ petitioners from the land and the houses in their possession in pursuance of the said scheme. This writ petition was allowed under the order impugned herein in terms of the Full Bench decision as stated above.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Dhruv Mehta, submitted that once the award is passed and possession is taken of the land acquired pursuant to the scheme, the title to the land vests in the Trust and that non-completion of the scheme within the period of 5 years specified in S.44-A cannot have the effect of invalidating the s
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.