PETITIONER:
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SITA RAM & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Leave granted.
These 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 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took a decision after the Jaipur Development authority Act had come into force to continue the acquisition under the repealed Act.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, 1984. 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 Rajasthan [(1996) 3 SCC 1]. 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 affect 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 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.
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. 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.
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. 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]. 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.