NASIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusHARBANSLAL LAIKWANT RAJPAL AND ORS. ETC.

            NASIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION                                          A
                         v.
       HARBANSLAL LAIKWANT RAJPAL AND ORS. ETC.

                           DECEMBER 9, 1996

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.]                                B

     Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 : Sections 28, 31,
37 and 127.

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 6, 9 and 16.
                                                                                 c
       Scheme for Acquisition of land under Town Planning Act-Reservation
of land for public purpose viz. for stables and road-Subsequently land
needed for another public purpose viz. infonnal housing and stab/,,_.l,and
acquired under Land Acquisition Act and vested in State Govemment--On
a representation made by the Corporation, the Govemment had issued a             D
conigendum restoring the status quo ante with a slight modification-Whether
the entire process required under Section 28 and Section 31 read with section
37 requires to be followed-Once a notification under Section 4(1) was
published and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
came to be published, the public purpose becomes conclusive and for any
                                                                                 E
variation without substantial fonnalities, it is not necessary that the entire
process of re-publication of the notification under Section 28 requires to be
followed-In the absence of notice or failure to serve notice, the award does
not become invalid.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 16850 of                     F
1996 Etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.94 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 4024 of 1989.

      V.N. Ganpule and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant.                        G
      U.R. Lalit and U.U. Lalit for the Respondents.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Leave granted.                                                             H
                                     701
    702                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9S.C.R.

A         These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the
   Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated October 14, 1994, made
   in W.P. No. 4023/89. Proceedings were initiated under the Maharashtra
   Regional & Tol\n Planing Act, 1966, (for short, the 'Act') for framing a
   scheme and for acquisition of the land in that behalf. The fmal develop-
B ment plan was made on November 29, 1980. Notification under section
   126(4) of the Act was published on August 6, 1987. It was published in the
   local newspaper on July 18, 1987 and in the village Chavadi on September
   25, 1987. It would appear that subsequently, after Section4(1) notification
   and declaration under Section 6 of the (Land Acquisition Act 1/1894) were
C published, notice was issued under Section 9 of the said Act on September
 • 16, 1989. Award came to be passed on September 22, 1989. The respon-
   dents filed writ petitions on September 25, 1989. The award was published
   on September 27, 1989. It would appear that the draft plan was issued for
   reservation of certain lands for the public purpose and no objections were
   filed. In the meanwhile, by proceedings dated December 26, 1990, the same
D came to be deleted by publication of the notification on June 28, 1993 and
   final plan was published on September 30, 1993.0n a representation made
   by the Corporation, the Government had issued a corrigendum on August
   19, 1994 restoring the status quo ante with a slight modification. The High
   Court in the impugned order, while upholding the validity of the notifica-
E tion under section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land
   Acquisition Act, held that the award was not valid in law since there was
   a corrigendum issued by the Government. Consequently, the procedure              .-
   provided under the Act was to be followed by operation of Section 37 of
   the Act. Thus these appeals by special leave.
F
          Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respon-
    dents, contends that once the reservation has been deleted., status quo ante
    stands restored. As a consequence, the entire process required under
    Section 28 and Section 31 read with Section 37 requires to be followed. In
    this case, that was not done. The High Court was right in quashing the
G   award. We find no force in the contention.

           It is true that if any scheme is modified and the plan has become
    final, the procedure contemplated under Sections 28 and 31 read with
    Section 37 of the Act is required to be adopted. But in this case, it is seen
H   that as per the corrigendum what has been modified is that the entire site
      NASIKMUN.CORPN. v. HARBANSLALLAIKWANTRAJPAL                   703

is now reserved for 'informal housing' and stable. Originally, the entire A
area was reserved for stables and 100' wide road. The reservation was
deleted earlier, as stated above, and western part was included in
commercial zone and eastern part was included in the residential zone
on the plan. In view of the fact that status quo ante of the final plan was
restored, though a part of it is now said to be used for residential B
purpose, the question is : whether the entire process of the issuance of
the notice under Section 28 involving consideration of the objections
and passing of the final plan after consideration is required to be gone
through? It is seen that by operation of Section 127 of the Act where
any land is included in any of scheme as being reserved, allotted or C
designated for any purpose specified therein or for the purpose of
Planning Authority or Development Authority or Appropriate
Authority and the State Government is satisfied that the same land is
needed for public purpose different from any such public purpose or
purpose of the Planning Authority, Development Authority or Ap-
propriate Authority, the State Government may notwithstanding any- D
thing contained in this Act, acquire such land under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sub-section (3) envisages that on the
land vesting in the State Government under Section 16 or 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, as the case may be, the relevant plan or scheme
shall be deemed to be suitably varied by reason of acquisition of the E
said land. Thus it could be seen that once a notification under Section
4(1) was published and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act came to be published, the public purpose becomes
 conclusive and for any variation without substantial formalities, it is not
necessary that the entire process of re- publication of the notification F
 under Section 28, fmding having been recorded under both the Section
31 read with Section 37, requires to be followed. The view of the High
Court, therefore, was not correct.

      It is then contended by Mr. U.R. Lalit, that the respondents had
not been given the information of the notification under Section 9 of the G
Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the award is bad in law. We find no
force in the contention. In the absence of notice or failure to serve
notice, the award does not become invalid. Due to the fact that imme-
diately after the award and before the publication of the award, the writ
petition came to be filed on September 25, 1980, we direct the appel- H
    704                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A !ants to make an application within six weeks under Section 18(1) of the
    Land Acquisition Act seeking reference. The Land Acquisition Officer is
    directed to refer the matter to the competent civil Court for disposal within
    two months according to law.

          The appeals are accordingly allowed but without costs.
B
    T.N.A.                                                     Appeals allowed.