BHATINDA IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 928 · Decided: 11-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' \ 
\ 
\\\ BHATINDA IMPRvOVEMENT, TRUST 
BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS ' 
\ 
) i 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 
\ 
I 
• 
,M.H. KANIA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Interp}etation of Statutes-Reference of Sections 6, 28, 58, 59 of 
Land Acqui$ition Act, 1894 in the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 
1922-Amen,dment of those provisions of Land Acquisition Act, after 
reference-Wi1ether affects the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. 
Punjab ~own Improvement Act, 1922-Sections 36, 42 read with 
section 6, L4~d Acquisition Act, 1894--Notice under Section 36 on 
30.5. I977 a1d publication of Notification sanctioning development 
scheme u/s. 2 on 30.6. 1980-First Proviso of Section 6, Land Acquisi-
tion Act-A ,plicability of. 
. 
' 
. 
I 
The a1;3pellant-the Improvement frost-framed a development 
scheme undoer the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and notices 
under Sectio\i 36 of the Act were published in the Daily Tribune on May 
31, 1977, Juine 7, 1977 and June 14, 1977 and in the local Daily Ajit on 
May 30. 19'77, June 6, 1977 and June 13, 1977 and in the Punjab 
Government Gazette on June 17, 1977, June 24, 1977 and July 1977, 
respectively'. 
i 
A no~ification as required under Section 42 of the Act was 
published ~·n June 30, 1980 sanctioning the development scheme. 
F 
The iltotification was challenged by the Respondents in a writ peti-
tion in the High Court on the ground that the notification was not issued 
' 
within the :stipulated period of three years from the first publications of 
the notice, 
i 
The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ application 
G 
and the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent 
Appeal, against which the present petition has been filed by the 
Improvement Trust, contending that the time limit of three years for 
the issue of the notification under section 42 of the ,-\ct was not pre-
scribed under the Act; that the first proviso to section 6 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894, was not applicable tn the scheme in question, 
H . and; that the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were 
928 
J 
• 
• 
IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. BAL WANT SINGH 
929 
incorporated in the Act from the very time of its enactment and hence, 
any amendment to the said section after that date would not be applic-
able to acquisitions under Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I. In a case where a statute is incorporated by a reference 
into another statute, an amendment of the statute so incorporated after 
the date of incorporation does not affect the liecom! statute and the 
provisions of the latter statute remain the same as they were at the time 
of incorporation. [934F-G I 
2. Where one statute is referred to in another, it may be merely 
by way of reference or by way of incorporation of the same. This 
depends on the language used in the latter statute and other relevant 
circumstances. [934G I 
3. In the present case, there is no question of incorporation of any 
of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into the Punjab 
Improvement Act 1922 at all as the latter Act does not deal with acquisi-
tion of land for the purposes of a scheme as contemplated under the Act. 
The acquisition of such land for the purposes of the scheme is left to the 
general law of the land in that connection, namely, the Land Acquisition 
Act, which has to be resorted to for the purposes of acquisition of land 
for the purposes of a scheme as contemplated under the Punjab Town 
Improvement Act. The only difference is that some of the provisions of 
the Land Acquisition Act, as referred to in the relevant sections of the 
Act, are given effect to as amended by the relevant sections of the Act. 
In these circumstances; it cannot be held that any provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act have been incorporated into the Act and the provisions 
of the Land Acquisition Act which have to be applied, are the provisions 
as they stood at the relevant time, namely, at the time of acquisition, in 
the absence of a contrary intention. [934G-C] 
4. The notification under Section 42 should have been published with-
<in the period of three years of the date of publication of the notification under 
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as required under the first 
proviso to Section 6ofthe Land Acquisition Act. Under sub-clause (J) of 
Clause (2) of the Scheaule to the said Act, the first publication of a 
notice of any improvement scheme under section 36 of the said Act, is 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
_

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.