INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHRI BALAKRISHNA AND ORS.

                    INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                      A
                                          v.
                        SHRI BALAKRISHNA AND ORS.

                                 AUGUST 5, 1996

                 \K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                               B

          MP. Town Improvement T111st Act 1960/M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram
    Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 :

         Ss.52, 70 and 71 !Adhiniyam 54-Acquisition of land for public pur-
    pose-Notification under s.71(2) published on 22.07.1973-Writ petition by
                                                                                      c
    land owners on the ground that since possession was not taken front thenz as
    provided under sub-sections (3) and (4) of s.71, the scheme has failed-Held,
    scheme framed by the Tntst was sanctioned by the Govemment---Once
    sanction for acquisition of land was accorded under s. 70 and Notification
    was published under s.71(2), the land should be deemed to have been vested D


-   in the State free from all encumbrances-Vesting is complete on the date of
    publication of Notification under s.71(2)-Vesting is not kept in jeopardy or
    postponed or does not beconze inconzplete till actual possession is taken by
    the autlwrities under s. 71 (3) or s. 71 (4hteps required to be taken under
    Sub-section (3) or (4) of s. 71 are only ministerial acts-Since the proceedings
                                                                                      E
    are pending s.54 of 1973 Adhiniyam has no application.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10690 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.94 of the Madhya Pradesh
                                                                                      F
    High Court in Misc. P. No. 885 of 1987.

            A.K. Chitale, S.K. Gambhir and Vivek Gambhir for the Appellant.

            U.N. Bachhawat, A.P. Dhamija and S.K. Jain for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :                          G

            Leave granted.

            We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

            This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division H
                                         283
    284                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Bench of the M.P. High Court made on April 19, 1994 in Misc. Petition
    No. 885/87. The admitted facts are that Town Improvement Scheme No.
    54 was framed under the provisions of the M.P. Town Improvement Trust
    Act (for short, 'Trust Act'). The Scheme consists of 629.43 acres of land
    situated in Indore of which 4.85 acres is the subject matter in this appeal.
    The Government had sanctioned this scheme under Section 54 of the Act.
B
    On September 16, 1966, the scheme was published in the State Gazette
    under Section 52(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is a conclusive evidence that
    the scheme was framed and sanction was duly granted by the Government.
    In other words, it has given conclusiveness lo the public purpose. The
    Government under Section 70 of the Act accorded sanction for the acquisi-
c   tion of the land. Notification under Section 70(1) of the Act was published
    on August 22, 1973. Consequently, by operation of Section 71(2) of the Act,
    the land on and from the date of such publication, stood vested absolutely
    in the trust free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) gives power to the
    trust to give notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession
D of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof, to the trust or to any
    person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service
    of the notice. In case the person in possession does not surrender or refuses
    to deliver possession, under sub-section (4), the trust has been empowered
    to take possession of the land and for that purpose cause such force to be
                                                                                    -
    used as may be necessary to take possession of the land.
E
          The respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court questioning
    the validity of the acquisition on the ground that since possession was not
    taken from them, the land did not vest in the State and, therefore, the
    scheme had failed. The High Court in the impugned order relying upon
    the scheme in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the
F
    'Act'), in pa1ticular Section 16 thereof and in view of the cases decided in
    that behalf, held that since possession was not taken, the scheme has
    lapsed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

           It is contended by Shri A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel for the
G appellant, that the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that the
     scheme had lapsed on failure to take possession of the land. He has
     specifically drawn our attention to Section 71(2) of the Trust Act. Shri
     Bachhawat, learned senior counsel for the respondent, now sought to place
     reliance, though not pressed in the High Cour\, on section 54 of M.P.
H    Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniydm, 1973 (for short, the 'Adhiniyam). It
              INDORE DEV. AlITHORITY v. BALAKRISHNA                     285

is contended that if the scheme is not commenced within in a period of         A
two years or completed within a period of five years from the date of the
final notification, the final scheme under Section 50 on expiry of the said
period shall stand lapsed. Accordingly it is contended that the scheme is
no longer in existence. He also contended that though the land stands
vested in the State on the publication of the notification under Section
                                                                               B
70(2) of the Trust Act until possession is actually taken the vesting is not
complete and, therefore, by operation of Section 54 of the 1973 Adhiniyam,
the possession cannot be taken. H~ also contends that under Section 56 of
1973 Adhiniyam, until the agreement is arrived at between the parties, on
expiry of the period of three years from the date of the notification under
Section 52 of the Trust Act, if the Town Development Scheme under              c
Section 50 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 has not been implemented within three
years therefrom, it shall stand lapsed. On requisition by the Trust and
acceptance thereof by the Government, appropriate procedure under the
Act shall be pursued and compensation paid. In this case, that procedure
was not adopted. Therefore, in either event the acquisition is not valid in    D
law. We find no force in the contention.

     It is seen that the scheme framed by the Trust and submitted to the
Government under Section 52 of the Trust ·Act, the sanctioned scheme
should be published which gives conclusiveness that valid scheme was
framed as per presumption under Section 52(2) and sanction was duly            E
granted by the Government. In other words, the sanction given by the
Government accords conclusive evidence of due compliance of law and
that proposed land is needed for public purpose for acquisition of the land
by the Trust under the provisions of the Trust Act. Once the sanction for
acquisition of land thereof was accorded under Section 70 and notification F
was published under Section 71(2), the land should be deemed to have
been vested in the State covered by the scheme free from all encumbrances.
Thereby, the vesting is complete on the date of publication of the notifica-
tion under Section 71(2). It was done on August 22, 1973. The steps
required to be taken under sub- section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section
71 are only ministerial acts. Therefore, vesting is not kept in jeopardy or G
postponed or becomes incomplete till actual possession is taken by the
authorities under Section 71(3) or 71(4) as the circumstances so warrant,
by issuance of notice ~nd expiry of thirty days in the event of failure to
deliver or surrender possession by the person in possession of the land
vesting in the Stale; thereafter possession could be taken as per procedure H
    286                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A in sub-section (4) of Section 71. It would, therefore, be clear that vesting
    is complete as soon as the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 71
    was published and thereafter the land vested is free from all encumbrance:;.
    It is true that under t.he Adhiniyam, Section 54 enjoins the town or country
    development authority to commence the scheme within two years and
    complete the scheme within five years from the date of sanction. On failure
B
    of either of the events, the scheme got lapsed. Section 54 reads as under :

              "54. If the Town and Country Development Authority fails to
              commence implementation of the Town Development Scheme
              within a period of two years or complete its implementation within
C             a period of five years from the date of notification of the final
              scheme under Section 50, it shall, on expiration of the said period
              of two years or five years, as the case may be, lapse;

              Provided that, if a dispute between the authority and parties, if
              any, aggrieved by such scheme is brought before a Court or tribunal
D             of competent jurisdiction, for consideration, the period for which
              such dispute pending before such court or tribunal shall not be
              reckoned for determination of the lapse of the scheme."

          By the proviso the time taken by the proceedings in court would be
                                                                                    '
    excluded from computation of the period for considering the lapse. Under
E   those circumstances, it cannot be held that the scheme has lapsed. Since
    the proceedings are pending, Section 56 of the Adhiniyam is equally has
    no application. So the need to avail the remedy under the Act 1/1899 does
    not arise.

            The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court
F stands set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs .

     R.P.                                                       . Appeal allowed.