Allahbad High Court
HARISWARUP,K.S.VARMA
Jhau Lal - Appellant
Versus
Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow - Respondent
Decided On : 04/06/1977
LAND ACQUISITION - UTTAR PRADESH NAGAR MAHAPALIKA ADHINIYAM, 1969 - S. 360, 361, 363, 367, 367-A - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - S. 4(2), 6 - VALIDITY OF IMPROVEMENT SCHEME - DECLARATION UNDER S. 6 - PUBLICATION UNDER S. 363 - TIME LIMIT FOR EXECUTION OF SCHEME - S. 350(1-A) - DIRECTORY OR MANDATORY - VAGUENESS OF NOTIFICATION UNDER S. 367 - VIOLATION OF ART. 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - LACHES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the validity of the Aliganj Street and City Expansion Scheme, an improvement scheme under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, on various grounds, including the validity of the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the time limit for the execution of the scheme, the vagueness of the notification under S. 367 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, and the violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
1. The declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act refers to the sanctioning of the scheme and not to the publication of the notification. The publication of the notification under S. 363 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam is equivalent to the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The time limit for the execution of the scheme under S. 350(1-A) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam is directory and not mandatory. The omission of the Land Development Committee in passing the resolution fixing the time limit cannot be deemed to be fatal to the scheme. 3. The notification under S. 367 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was not vague as it gave the boundaries of the area to be acquired and the particulars of the scheme could be seen at the office of the Nagar Mahapalika. 4. There was no material before the court to hold that the intention of Art. 14 of the Constitution was being violated.
Issues: 1. Whether the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act refers to the sanctioning of the scheme or to the publication of the notification? 2. Whether the time limit for the execution of the scheme under S. 350(1-A) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam is directory or mandatory? 3. Whether the notification under S. 367 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was vague? 4. Whether there was a violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act refers to the sanctioning of the scheme and not to the publication of the notification. The publication of the notification under S. 363 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam is equivalent to the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The time limit for the execution of the scheme under S. 350(1-A) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam is directory and not mandatory. The omission of the Land Development Committee in passing the resolution fixing the time limit cannot be deemed to be fatal to the scheme. 3. The notification under S. 367 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was not vague as it gave the boundaries of the area to be acquired and the particulars of the scheme could be seen at the office of the Nagar Mahapalika. 4. There was no material before the court to hold that the intention of Art. 14 of the Constitution was being violated.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the validity of the improvement scheme was dismissed.
HARI SWARUP, J. :- Certain petitioners have challenged through the present writ petition the validity of the Aliganj Street and City Expansion Scheme, an improvement scheme under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. Another petition was filed earlier by some other persons in which the same scheme was challenged on various grounds, Learned counsel for the petitioners has not taken us over again the same grounds. We take it that he has argued those grounds and our judgment on those points is the same as is contained in our judgment in Writ Petition No. 137 of 1974, Mahabir Singh Kotwali v. Nagar Mahapalika LKO.
2. The first contention is that the declaration having not been made within the time limit fixed by S. 4 (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, Act No. 13 of 1967, the whole proceedings had become void and the scheme frustrated. Sub-s. (2) of S. 4 reads as under:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-sec. (1), no declaration under S. 6 of the principal Act in respect of any land which has been notified before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967, under sub-s. (1) at S. 4 of the principal Act, shall be made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the said Ordinance."
The contention of the learned counsel is that in view of this provision, no declaration could be published under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act beyond two years from the commencement of the Act viz., 20th January, 1967. The facts relevant for the purpose are as follows: The scheme was sanctioned under S. 360 by the Nagar Mahapalika but as it required further sanction by the State Government, it went to the State Government and the final order sanctioning the scheme was passed on 29th May, 1967. The publication of this declaration under S. 363 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was made on 16th December, 1967. There was some error in this notification and accordingly in supersession thereof another notification was published on April 26, 1969. As the amendment Act of 1967 had come into force on 20th January, 1967, this publication was beyond two years of the date of the coming into force of the Act. The contention of the learned Advocate General, however, is that sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 of the Act No. 13 of 1967 contemplates not the publication but only the declaration to acquire the land under sub-sec. (1) of S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Annexure A-2 is the document which shows the declaration that was made by the State Government in pursuance of the requirement of sanction under S. 361 of the Adhiniyam. Section 360 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam provides:-
"The Mahapalika shall.....take such scheme into consideration together with any objection or representation received or made under Ss. 367 and 358 and the recommendation of the Development Committee under S. 359 and shall either abandon the scheme or sanction the scheme with such modifications, if any, as it may consider necessary;
Provided that in the case of a scheme of the estimated cost of over Rs. 10,00,000 the sanction of the State Government shall also be obtained."
The scheme is of the estimated cost of much more Rs. 10,00,000. The order of the State Government dated May 29, 1967 reads as under:-
"With reference to the correspondence resting with your letter No. T/556/A-C, dated December 16, 1966, on the above subject. I am directed to say that under sub-sec. (1) of S. 361 of the uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1969 (U. P. Act No. II of 1969), the Governor is pleased to sanction the improvement scheme namely, Aliganj Street and City Expansion Scheme of the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow at an approximate cost of Rs. 38,86,000.00, as approved by the Chief Engineer, Town and Country Planning Department vide his letter No. 1612/ 23 (LAD) Tp/66, dated April 7, 1966, addressed to you and copy endorsed to Government. The scheme was notified by the Nagar Mahapalika under S. 357 of the said
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.