1997 JTR(SC) 182
1997 AIR(SC) 1104 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1129 ; 1997 2 ICC 28 ; 1997 2 JT 501 ; 1997 2 Scale 53 ; 1997 3 SCC 522 ; 1997 1 SCJ 367 ; 1997 1 SCR 859 ; 1997 1 UJ 485 ; 1997 KHC 791 ; 1997 2 Supreme 246
1997(2) Supreme 246
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Jaipur Development Authority -Appellant
versus
Sita Ram & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 704-731 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3100-27 of 1994)
Decided on 3-2-1997.
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Sushil Kumar Jain, Krishan Singh Chauhan, Advocates.
Act Referred :RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT ACT : S.52
(A) The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, particularly Section 52, governs the notification and acquisition procedures in the present case. The Act was later repealed and replaced, with the Jaipur Development Authority Act providing a new statutory framework. The conflict arose when the Jaipur Development Authority, after the new Act came into force, sought to validate and continue acquisition proceedings that were initiated under the repealed Act by issuing a fresh notification on April 20, 1964, which was challenged in these proceedings. The impugned notification and the subsequent acquisition proceedings were contested on the ground that they lacked the sanction of a properly framed scheme under the Act, a requirement that the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had emphasized in a prior decision.
(B) The core legal principles established are that the correctness of the law depends on the validity of the statutory scheme for land acquisition, and that procedural requirements under the Act must be strictly complied with. The court clarified that the principles laid down in earlier precedents regarding the necessity of a sanctioned scheme were not applicable to the facts of this case and were subsequently overruled by a Full Bench decision.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was published on October 8, 1979. Subsequently, the Jaipur Development Authority, after the Jaipur Development Authority Act came into force, decided to continue the acquisition and issued a fresh notification on April 20, 1964. This notification was challenged in writ petitions, leading to a Division Bench ruling that questioned the validity of the notification without a properly framed scheme under the new Act.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench's 1993 judgment in Narain was held to be not final and was expressly overruled by a later Full Bench decision. The court found that the reliance on the Division Bench's interpretation was erroneous, as it misinterpreted the scope and effect of the Supreme Court's earlier rulings in the Gandhi Grah Nirman and State of Tamil Nadu cases. The High Court's contention that a scheme must be framed before acquisition could proceed was rejected.
Issues:
Whether the notification issued under Section 52 of the Act was valid when issued after the repeal of the original Act and without a sanctioned scheme. Whether the Division Bench's interpretation of the Supreme Court's precedents was correct. Whether the principles established in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohd. Yousef were applicable to the facts of this case.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that the principles of law applied by the Division Bench were incorrect and not supported by the true reading of the relevant Supreme Court judgments. The notification issued for acquisition cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that a scheme under the successor Act had not been framed, as the earlier precedences on this point have been overruled.
Result:
The appeals are allowed. The High Court judgment is set aside, and the writ petitions are dismissed with no costs awarded.
(A) The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, particularly Section 52, governs the notification and acquisition procedures in the present case. The Act was later repealed and replaced, with the Jaipur Development Authority Act providing a new statutory framework. The conflict arose when the Jaipur Development Authority, after the new Act came into force, sought to validate and continue acquisition proceedings that were initiated under the repealed Act by issuing a fresh notification on April 20, 1964, which was challenged in these proceedings. The impugned notification and the subsequent acquisition proceedings were contested on the ground that they lacked the sanction of a properly framed scheme under the Act, a requirement that the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had emphasized in a prior decision.
(B) The core legal principles established are that the correctness of the law depends on the validity of the statutory scheme for land acquisition, and that procedural requirements under the Act must be strictly complied with. The court clarified that the principles laid down in earlier precedents regarding the necessity of a sanctioned scheme were not applicable to the facts of this case and were subsequently overruled by a Full Bench decision.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was published on October 8, 1979. Subsequently, the Jaipur Development Authority, after the Jaipur Development Authority Act came into force, decided to continue the acquisition and issued a fresh notification on April 20, 1964. This notification was challenged in writ petitions, leading to a Division Bench ruling that questioned the validity of the notification without a properly framed scheme under the new Act.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench's 1993 judgment in Narain was held to be not final and was expressly overruled by a later Full Bench decision. The court found that the reliance on the Division Bench's interpretation was erroneous, as it misinterpreted the scope and effect of the Supreme Court's earlier rulings in the Gandhi Grah Nirman and State of Tamil Nadu cases. The High Court's contention that a scheme must be framed before acquisition could proceed was rejected.
Issues:
Whether the notification issued under Section 52 of the Act was valid when issued after the repeal of the original Act and without a sanctioned scheme. Whether the Division Bench's interpretation of the Supreme Court's precedents was correct. Whether the principles established in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohd. Yousef were applicable to the facts of this case.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that the principles of law applied by the Division Bench were incorrect and not supported by the true reading of the relevant Supreme Court judgments. The notification issued for acquisition cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that a scheme under the successor Act had not been framed, as the earlier precedences on this point have been overruled.
Result:
The appeals are allowed. The High Court judgment is set aside, and the writ petitions are dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
These appeal 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 batch.
Notification under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was published on October 8, 1979. Thereafter, the Jaipur Development Authority took a decision after the Jaipur Development Authority Act had come into force to continue the acquisition under the repealed Act. Consequently, fresh notification was issued on April 20, 1964. The same came to be challenged in the Writ Petitions. The 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 Rajasthan1. In fact the decision under appeal was expressly held not a good law. This Court had held thus :
"14. 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 effect the present proceedings. Firstly, 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; secondly 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:
The 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 paras 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, 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.
It is 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. Further more 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 latter decision of the Full bench is correctly decided. The 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. In 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. Yousef2 has been over-ruled by a later decision of three-Judges Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. L. Krishnan & Ors.3. Therefore, 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.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The Judgment of the High Court stands set aside. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******