Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
S. GURDIAL SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa
Manoj Swarup,Vikas Vashisht,Advs. for Ms. MinakshiVij,
Adv. for the appellants
Rohit Aggarwal, Adv. for R.S. Suri, Adv. for the Respondent
O R D E R
The following order of thecourt was delivered:
This appeal by special leave, arises fromthe judgment
of the DivisionBench of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana,
Chandigarh, made on November 26, 1985 in CWPNo. 2575/85,
dismissing the writ petition inlimine.
The admitted position is that therespondent Trust had
published on September4, 1975 two notification under
section36 and48 of the punjab Town Improvement Act,1922
( for short, the "Act’ ), which are equivalent to the
notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, the "Central Act), respectively on
20.10.1972 and19.9.1975, acquiring atotal extent of 0.3
acres of land with boundaries, statedin the scheme framed
under Section 24 readwith Section 28 (2)of the Act
including the statement made therein with a general map of
the locality comprisedin the declaration under Section
41(1) of the Act which is equivalentto Section 6 of the
CentralAct. An enquiry under Section 11 of the Central Act
was conducted and theaward was made on January 19, 1977.
Thereafter, theappellants sought a reference.Accordingly,
reference under section 18 came to be made to the civil
court .In 1985, the appellants filed writ petition in the
High court challenging the notification issued and the
declaration under Section 41 on the ground that the
notification and declaration were vague and, therefore,
the acquisition was bad in law. The High Court, as stated
above, dismissed the writ petition in limine, Hencethis
appeal by special leave.
This Court has recently considered the entire case law
and held in State of Tamil Nadu vs. L.N. Krishnan [(1996) 1
SCC 250] that the notification cannot be quashed on the
ground of vagueness. Therein,notification under Section
4(1) indicatedthat the landswere needed for the housing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
scheme to meetthe demands made by various sectors of the
population under K.K. Nagar Further ExtensionScheme.That
scheme was found to be not vague and hence could not be
quashedon thegroundthat it was vague. This Court has
reversed the judgment in State of TamilNadu Vs. A. Mohammed
Yousef [(1991)(4) SCC224] wherein itwas held that unless
a detailed scheme is framed under theimproved scheme, the
notification under section 4(1) is illegal. Itis seenthat
the notification issued in the present case indicates the
existence of the map and thedetailed scheme for there
inspection of the persons interested in the scheme. It was
reiterated in the declaration published under Section6 of
the Central Act. A scheme was also annexed to the
declaration. Under these circumstances,though the
notification has notdisclosed thepublicpurpose, it
cannot be said that thescheme itself is vague and is liable
to be quashed. That apart, the award was made on January
19, 1977 and the reference under Section 18 also was sought
for and was made. Under those circumstances, thewrit
petition was filed after an inordinatedelay of 8 years and
the appellantsaccepted the award passed by the court and
the relief sought for. Accordingly , we donot find any
illegality in the ultimate conclusionreached by theHigh
Court that it doesthatit does not even warrant
interference.
Itis then contended, relying upon the decision of
this court in State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi [(1986) 4 SCC
251] that theappellants are entitled to allotment of
alternative sites for commercial purpose. Therein, the
land was acquired forhousingdevelopment and the persons
whose properties were sought to be displaced were directed
to be provided housing accommodation under the schemes
formed thereunder. The general ratio therein cannot be
uniformly and mechanically extended to all the cases unless
there is any express scheme framed by appropriate
authorities and the scheme isin operation.under these
circumstances, we cannot give anyexpressdirection in
this behalf. However, when the grievance was made by the
appellants, an admission was made inthe counter
affidavit filedin the High Court thus:
"The petitionerscould get a plot
ofland as localDisplaced Person
inlieu of their acquired land
according to ruleson the subject."
Inview of the above statement, it will be open to the
appellants to make anapplication to the respondents and
they would consider according to the scheme.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above
observation. No costs.