UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARANversusRAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ORS. ETC.

                 UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN                                A
                                  V.
              RAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ORS. ETC.

                       NOVEMBER 14, 1991

           [RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., KULDIP SINGH                           B
                   ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.]

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4(1)-Notification
under-Acquisition oflands for scheme No.23 framed under Madhya Pradesh
Nagar'Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam---Non-compliance of statutory re-
quirements for completing Scheme-No ma/a fides-Effect of C
notification-Directions of Supreme Court under the Circumstances.

     A notification u/s.4(1) of the La11,d Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued for acquisiti.on of the questicfoed lands along with some other
lands for the purpose of development of the town. On 17:9.80 the
same was quashed.                                                        D

     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          E
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

     The High Court allowed the writ petitions annulling the notifi-
cation 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 com-           F
plied with and therefore, no action for acquisition under the Scheme
could be taken.

     These appeals were filed by the Development Authority again$l
the High Court judgments by special leave.
                                                                         G
     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
ma/a fides. The Development Authority in question consisted oJ;, only
one person. His own order was perhaps taken by him and the gov-          H

                                 247
    248                SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   ernmental authorities as the requisite resolution. The respondents
    did not take the ground that there was no valid authority behind the
    scheme. [249 E-FJ      •
          2. The huge patch of land has been substantially improved
    upon under the scheme. Cancellation d the notification does not
B   bring the matter to an end. Obviously, fresh 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 re-
    spondents 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 G-
c   250 A]
         3. It is directed that the acquisition remain to subject, to the
   condition that the notification 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 determine'tt with reference to
   that date, and that as the" deemed date of the notification under
D section 4(1) to be postponed by almost three years and during this
   period since the appellant has brought about the bulk of the im-
   provements 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 respondents, but in fixing market
E. 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 notifica-            (, ..
   tion of 1980 or 1985 on the basis of court's direction that the re-
   spondents' lands shall be deemed to have been notified under sec-
   tion 4(1) of the Act on 1.1.1988. [250 B-D]
F       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.4554 to
    4556of1991.   ·

         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.91 of the Madhya Pradesh
    High Court in Misc. Petition Nos. 1707, 1746 and 179z of 1986.

G        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.Siilgh, D.Mehta, A.Vachher, R.N.Mittal and S.K.Mehta for the Re-

H
       ,
    spondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .




                                                                                  I
                  VIK.AS PRADHIKARAN v. RAJ JOHRI [MISRA, CJ.]                 249

           RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. Special leave granted.                                A
             Ujjain Development Authority is in appeal challenging the judgment
     . of the Madhya Predesh High Court, Indore Bench, rendered in an applica-
       tion under Article 226 of the Constitution 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 framed under Madhya               B
      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 acquisi-
      tion 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           C
      been quashed. In 1985 the impugned notification was issued afresh under
      section 4(1) of the Act.

             The High Court found that the requirements of the statute for com-
      pleting the scheme for the purpose of which the acquisition had been
      made had not been complied with and, therefore, no action for acquisition D
      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 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 Notifi-
      cation in respect of Scheme No. 23 has also been produced. Though there E
      is a finding that the pre-conditions had not been complied with strictly
      linder the statutory provisions, the High Court has not found any mala
     .fides. The Development Authority in question consisted of only one per-
      son. His own order was perhaps taken by him and the governmental
      authorities as the requisite resolution. The respondents did not take the
      ground that there was no valid authority behind the scheme. In the earlier F
      petition also such a ground had not been raised. The High Court called for
      the record and discovered for itself that the statutory pre-condition had not
      been complied with for the said scheme to operate. If this question had



I
      be,en raised when the earlier writ petition was filed about 12 years back,
      the defect could have then been rectified.
                                                                                      G
~.
            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 acquisition is not made
     the respondents should enjoy usual benefits of their land on account of the H
     25C               SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A  development of the neighbouring area and if the re-acquisition 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 notification under section 4(1)
   of the Act issued in 1985 shall be deemed to be one dated 1.1.88 and the
B 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 di-
   rected the deemed date of the notification under section 4(1) to be post-
   poned by almost three years and during this period the appellant has
C brought about the bulk of the improvements in the neighbourhood. We
   direct that 25 per cent of the potential value of the land refatable 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. 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
D 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 noti-
  fied 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 notification for the purpose of section 28-A of the
  Act. The respondents should, therefore, be entitled to this benefit that
E 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
  compensation in the manner indicated. There will be no order as to costs.

    V.P.R.                                              Appeals disposed of.