http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

RAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1991

BENCH:

MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)

BENCH:

MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)

KULDIP SINGH (J)

MOHAN, S. (J)

CITATION:

1992 AIR 1538 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 247

1992 SCC (1) 328 JT 1991 (4) 424

1991 SCALE (2)1097

ACT:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Section 4(1)---Notifi-

cation under Acquisition of lands for scheme No. 23 framed

under Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh

Adhiniyam--Non--compliance of statutory requirements for

completing Scheme--No malafides--Effect of notification-

Directions of Supreme Court under the Circumstances.

HEADNOTE:

A notification u/s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 was issued for acquisition of the questioned lands

along with some other lands for the purpose of development

of the town. On 17.9.80 the same was quashed.

In 1985 another similar notification was issued u/s 4(1)

of the Act, for acquisition of the same lands for the Scheme

No.23 framed under Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh

Adhiniyam, 1973.

The respondents challenged the notification before the

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions annulling the

notification and holding that the Scheme No.23 did not

operate against certain specified lands of the respondents.

It also found that the statutory requirements for completing

the scheme were not complied with and therefore, no action

for acquisition under the Scheme could be taken.

These appeals were filed by the Development Authority

against the High Court judgments by special leave.

Disposing of the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1. The pre-conditions had not been complied with

strictly under the statutory provisions. The High Court has

not found any malafides. The Development Authority in ques-

tion consisted of only one person. His own order was perhaps

taken by him and the gov-

248

ernmental authorities as the requisite resolution. The

respondents did not take the ground that there was no valid

authority behind the scheme. [249 E-F]

2. The huge patch of land has been substantially

improved upon under the scheme. Cancellation of the notifi-

cation does not bring the matter to an end. Obviously, fresh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

proceedings would be taken after complying with the defect

if the judgment of the High Court is allowed to stand. If

the acquisition is not made the respondents should enjoy

usual benefits of their land on account of the development

of the neighbouring area and if the re-acquisition is not

made there would be claim for higher compensation. [249 G250

A]

3. It is directed that the acquisition remain to

subject, to the condition that the notification under sec-

tion 4(1) of the Act issued in 1985 shall be deemed to be

one dated 1.1.88 and the market value of the land for the

acquisition shall be determined with reference to that date,

and that as the deemed date of the notification under sec-

tion 4(1) to be postponed by almost three years and during

this period since the appellant has brought about the bulk

of the improvements in the neighbourhood, 25 per cent of the

potential value of the land relatable to the improvements

made by the appellant would only be available to the re-

spondents, but in fixing market value all other legitimate

considerations shall be taken into account. There is no

intention to extend the benefit under section 28 of the Act

to the owners of the lands already acquired under the noti-

fication of 1980 or 1985 on the basis of court's direction

that the respondents' lands shall be deemed to have been

notified under section 4(1) of the Act on 1.1.1988. [250 B-

D]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.4554 to

4556 of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.91 of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition Nos. 1707, 1746 and

1797 of 1986.

D.D..Thakur, C.S.Chazed, V.Gambhir, Surinder Kamail,

S.K.Gambhir and N.N.Bhatt for the Appellants.

K.K. Venugopal, P.P.Rao, G.L.Sanghi, K.K. Sharma, Ashok

K. Mahajan, L.R. Singh, D.Mehta, A.Vachher, R.N.Mittal and

S.K.Mehta for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

249

RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. Special leave granted.

Ujjain Development Authority is in appeal challenging

the judgment of the Madhya Predesh High Court, Indore Bench,

rendered in an application under Article 226 of the Consti-

tution annulling the notification issued under section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act') by holding that scheme No.23 flamed under Madhya

Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 does not

operate against certain specified lands of the respondents.

It would appear that there was a similar notification under

section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of the self same

properties along with some 600 hectares for the purpose of

development of Ujjain, a historical town of Kalidas fame

within Madhya Pradesh. On 17.9.80 for different reasons the

notification had been quashed. In 1985 the impugned notifi-

cation was issued afresh under section 4(1) of the Act.

The High Court found that the requirements of the stat-

ute for completing the scheme for the purpose of which the

acquisition had been made had not been complied with and,

therefore, no action for acquisition under the scheme could

be taken. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides

and must state that the reasoning given by the High Court is

difficult to find fault with. There are, however certain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

features which lead us not to sustain the decision of the

High Court. Admittedly there has been a notification under

section 50(2) of the Adhiniyam. Gazette Notification in

respect of Scheme No. 23 has also been produced. Though

there is a finding that the pre-conditions had not been

complied with strictly under the statutory provisions, the

High Court has not found any mala fides. The Development

Authority in question consisted of only one person. His own

order was perhaps taken by him and the governmental authori-

ties as the requisite resolution. The respondents did not

take the ground that there was no valid authority behind the

scheme. In the earlier petition also such a ground had not

been raised. The High Court called for the record and dis-

covered for itself that the statutory pre-condition had not

been complied with for the said scheme to operate. If this

question had been raised when the earlier writ petition was

filed about 12 years back, the defect could have then been

rectified.

It is the admitted case before us that the undisputed

huge patch of land has been substantially improved upon

under the scheme. Cancellation of the notification does not

bring the matter to an end. Obviously fresh proceedings

would be taken after complying with the defect if the judg-

ment of the High Court is allowed to stand. If the acquisi-

tion is not made the respondents should enjoy usual benefits

of their land on account of the

250

development of the neighbouring area and if the re-acquisi-

tion is made there would be claim for higher compensation.

Looking at the matter from these different angles, we have

thought it appropriate to allow the appeal, vacate the

judgment of the High Court and allow the acquisition to

remain subject, however, to the condition that the notifica-

tion under section 4(1) of the Act issued in 1985 shall be

deemed to be one dated 1.1.88 and the market value of the

land for the acquisition shall be determined with reference

to that date. We would like to point out that the potential

value of the land has substantially enhanced on account of

the improvements made pursuant to the notification which had

been assailed. We have directed the deemed date of the

notification under section 4(1) to be postponed by almost

three years and during this period the appellant has brought

about the bulk of the improvements in the neighbourhood. We

direct that 25 per cent of the potential value of the land

relatable to the improvements made by the appellant would

only be available to the respondents, but in fixing market

value all other legitimate considerations shall be taken

into account. We make it clear that we have no intention to

extend the benefit under section 28A of the Act to the

owners of the lands already acquired under the notification

of 1980 or 1985 on the basis of our direction that the

respondents' lands shall be deemed to have been notified

under section 4(1) of the Act on 1.1. 1988. In fact our

order must be deemed to be a separate notification for

acquisition and, therefore, it would not be a common notifi-

cation for the purpose of section 28-A of the Act. The

respondents should, therefore, be entitled to this benefit

that instead of the notification under section 4(1) of the

Act being of 1985, it shall be treated to be of 1.1.1988.

The appellate authority is now entitled to take position in

accordance with law subject to the valuation of the compen-

sation in the manner indicated. There will be no order as to

costs.

V.P.R. Appeals dis-

posed of.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

251