Holding

Framing a scheme is not a pre‑condition for land acquisition under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act; therefore the acquisition notification cannot be quashed on that basis.

Summary

The Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) issued a notification under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 in 1979 and later, after the JDA Act came into force, issued a fresh notification in 1984 to continue land acquisition under the repealed Act. Several writ petitions challenged the validity of the 1984 notification, arguing that a scheme under the JDA Act must be framed before any acquisition can proceed. The Rajasthan High Court held the notification invalid for lack of a framed scheme. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined earlier decisions, notably Pratap v. State of Rajasthan and the overruling of State of Tamil Nadu v. Mohd. Yousef by State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. L. Krishnan, and concluded that framing a scheme is not a pre‑condition for acquisition under Section 52. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, dismissed the writ petitions, and allowed the appeals without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a scheme under the Jaipur Development Authority Act must be framed before a notification under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act can be validly issued.
Whether the High Court's decision to quash the acquisition notification on the ground of lack of a scheme is legally correct.

Legislation cited

Subjects

land acquisitionnotificationSection 52scheme requirementRajasthan Urban Improvement Actrepealed legislationwrit petitionSupreme Court

Judgment

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
v.
SITA RAM AND ORS.

- FEBRUARY 3,1997

B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

Land Acquisition :

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 :

S. 52--Notification published-Act repealed-Decision to continue the C
acquisition under the repealed A ct-Fresh notifications issued-Challenged in
writ petitions-High Court holding that the notification issued was not valid
in law-On appeal held, framing of a scheme is a pre-condition for acquisi-
tion of land is not a correct proposition· of law-Notification for acquisition
cannot be quashed on that account. D
Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, [1996) 3 SCC 1 & State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. v. L. Krishnan & Ors., [1996) 1 SCC 250, relied on.

State of Tamil Nadu v. Mohd. Yousef, [1991) 4 SCC 224, referred to.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 704-731
of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.93 of the Rajasthan High
Court in W.P. Nos. 1124, 1187-98, 1236-39, 1241, 1245, 1264-66, 1366,
1383-85, 1424 and 1820 of 1984. F
S.K. Bhattachary for the Appellant.

Sushi! Kumar Jain and Krishan Singh Chauhan for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : G
Leave granted.

These appeals by special leav<'. arise from the judgment dated Sep-
tember 9,' 1993 of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court made
in C.W.P. No. 1124/84 and batch. ·H
859
~
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A Notification under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement
Act, 1959 was published on October 8, 1979. Thereafter, the Jaipur ~.t

Development Authority took a decision after the Jaipur Development

B
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 case 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, (996] 3 SCC 1. In fact the decision under appeal was
expressly held not a good law. This Court had held thus :
c
"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
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is not final because
D ....
the Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3100-3127of1994 (the present
app~) 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
E 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
F 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 Samti 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

G
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
H Samiti Ltd.
. . .

JAIPURDEVELOPMENTAU1HORITYv.
. .. ''. SITARAM.
',· ~
861

It is indeed u~fortunate that the judginent of the Division Bench A
in Narain case was relied on, wheri the saine had beert 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 B
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 con-
form 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 C
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 sec 224. D
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 nof a correct proposition of E
law. The notification for acquisition cannot be quashed on that account.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The judginent of the High
Court stands set aside, Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
-<, No costs.
F
G.N. Appeals allow,ed.

-