LexAMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST ETC. versus BALDEVA INDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
386 AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST ETC. A v. BALD EV A INDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. November 17, 1971 [K. ~· HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J B Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922-Scheme prepared by Amritsar Improvement Trust under ss. 24, 25 & 28 of Act and sanctioned by Gov- ernment under s. 41-Scheme purporti"ng to be 'developrnent scheme' and 'housing accommodation scheme' inciud~ng areas outside 1nunicipal lirniis--Scheme· was invalid since it was an expansio1t Slhe1ne-Acceptance by Government did not make scheme valid-Being v;.e and indivisible scheme must be struck down as a whole. c The Amritsar Improvement Trust by its resolution dated April 19, 1962 framed a development-cum-housing accommodation scheme under s;. 24, 25 and 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922. After notice was issued under s. 36 of the Act several objections were received. The objections were rejected by the Improvement 1 rust. )'hereafter the scheme was submitted to the government and sanctioned by it under s. 41. The High Court in writ petitions filed before it challenging the scheme held that the Imprm·ement Trust had no power to rnclude in a 'develop- ment scheme' areas outside the municipality for the purpose of develop- ment. In appeals to this Court against the judgment of the 'High Court, HELD : (i) The legislature has given specific names to the schemes to be prepared by the Improvement Trust. Hence when the Improvement ftwt says that it has prepared 'a development scheme', it is not possible to. hold that in fact it has prepared 'an expansion scheme'. The power conferred on the Improvement Trust is not a plenary power. It is a power that has to be exercised in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Act. If the Improvement Trust wanted to prepare 'an expansion scheme' it should have formed an opinion in the terms o[ s. 24(2) "that it is expedient and for the public advantage to promote and control the deve- !lopment of and to provide for the expansion of a municipality in a locality adjacent thereto within the local area of such trust". [391 HJ From the resolutions passed by the Improvement Trust it did not appear that it had formed any such opinion. Undt!r these circumstances it was not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that as the resolutions of the Improvement Trust refer to s. 24 it could be concluded that the scheme prepared was 'an expansion scheme'. · The resolutions of D F the Improvement Trust did not merely refer to s. 24. They also said that G the scheme pr,epared was 'a development scheme' cun1 'housing scheme'. li these resolutions were rt:ad as a whole it was clear thac the Improve- ment Trust purported to Act under its nower under o. 24(!) which-dealt with 'developincnt scheme' anc. s. !5 wnich dealt with 'hoL1sing acco1nmo- dation scheme' and not under s. 24(2). [392 B-C] , (ii) It is a well established principle that if an aulho;itv has a valid power to do a pa_rticular act. the fact that it purported to do that act under H a vrovision of law which did not confer power to do that act, would not invalidate that act. But that rule was inapplicable to the facts of this particular case. [393 BJ c D E F G IMPROVEMENT TRllSI V. INDER SINGH (Hegde, ],) 387 Before taking action under s. 24(2), the Improvement Trust had to form a particular opinion. The formation ot that opinion was a condi- tion precedent. Until the lmpro,-ement Trust forms that opinion it is incompetent to take action under that section. The Act has not oonferred anv blanket power on the Improvement Trust. to frame any scheme which it thought fit. That being so it was not possible to uµhoid the contention of the appellants that the impugned· scheme could be traced to a valid power. [393 C-D] L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. lnco1ne-tax Officer. 5pc.:ial l'ircle A1nhala Ca11tt. and Anr., 41 l.T.R. 12 and Hukumchand Mil.< Ltd. v. Srate of \fadhya Pradesh & Arn'., 52 I. T.R. 583, distinguished. (iii) The schemes framed by the Improvement Trusts do not come iuto force automatically. They have to be sanctioneJ by the Govern- ment. Hence it is necessary for the government to know before sanction- ing the scheme as to what the scheme is, so that it nJav·~an1ine whether that scben1c is necessary or feasible. In the present case the government was informed that the scheme in question was 'a deYelopment-cum-housing •tcommodation scheme'. It appro,·eJ the scheme. It ca
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.