Development Authority Vs. Sita Ram & Ors  INSC 114 (3 February 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
O R D E
appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated September 9, 1993 of the
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court made in C.W.P. No. 1124/84 and
under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was published on October 8, 1979.
the Jaipur Development Authority took a decision after the Jaipur Development
authority Act had come into force to continue the acquisition under the
fresh notification was issued on April 20, 1984. The same came to be challenged in the Writ Petitions.
Division Bench of the High Court has held that unless the scheme under the Jaipur
Development Authority Act has been properly framed, notification issued is not
valid in law. This question was considered by this Court in Pratap v. State of Rajasthan [(1996) 3 SCC 1]. In fact the
decision under appeal was expressly held not a good law. This Court had held
There is also no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
rendered in 1993 in Narain case can in any way affect the present proceedings.
the said decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is not
final because the Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3100-3127 of 1994 (the
present appeal) have been filed and the same are pending in this Court;
this decision has not been approved by a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
in its judgment dated 1.11.1995 in Urban Improvement Trust v. State of
Rajasthan and the other connected cases. In this judgment, dealing with Narain
case the Full Bench observed as follows:
Division Bench of this Court in the case Narain v. State of Rajasthan, has held that the acquisition
proceedings cannot be taken in the absence of sanctioned notified scheme. This
view has been taken by interpreting only para 9 of the Supreme Court decision
of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. case to the facts and circumstances
of the case before the Division Bench. Consideration of para 8 and 11 of the
Supreme Court decision does not find place in the decision of the Division
Bench. As stated above, the combined effect of paras 8, 9 and 11 of the Supreme
court decision seems to be otherwise. With utmost respect, it is difficult to
agree with the observations made and view expressed by the Division Bench in the
case of Narain as regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
indeed unfortunate that the judgment of the Division Bench in Narain case was
relied on, when the same had been overruled by the Full Bench of that Court
without referring to the Full Bench decision. Furthermore even on merits we
find that the said decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
in Narain case does not lay down the correct law and the later decision of the
Full Bench is correctly decided.
contention which was raised before the High Court, and it succeeded, in Narain
case was that there could be no proceedings for acquisition which do not
conform with the provisions of the master plan inasmuch as the master plan
shows one particular use for the land in question, the said land could not be
acquired for a different purpose. It was further contended that without framing
of a scheme land could not be acquired under Section 52 of the said Act.
upholding this contention the High Court placed reliance on the two-Judge Bench
decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohd. Yousef [(1991) 4 SCC 224]." Even the decision in State
of Tamil Nadu v. Mohd. Yousef [(1991) 4 SCC 224]
has been over-ruled by a later decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. L. Krishnan & Ors. [(1996) 1 SCC 250].
the view of the High Court that framing of a scheme is a pre-condition for
acquisition of land is not a correct proposition of law. The notification for
acquisition cannot be quashed on that account.
appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set
aside. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2