DALCHAND & ORS. versus DELHI IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY), NEW DELHI

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 24-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
\..l 
B 
0 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
27 
DALCHAND & ORS. 
v. 
DELffi IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOWI DELHI DEVELOPMENT 
AUTHOIUTY)• NEW DELHI 
March 24, 1966 
(K. N. WANCHOO, M. H!DAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.] 
United Provinces Town Improvement Act (8 of 1908), ss. 23(a), 24 
(h} and 32-Scheme of Town expansion by Improvement Trust-
Supplementary scheme to fulfil requireme.nts of company unde! . ~he 
Original Scheme-Validity-If Act authorised compulsory acquisition 
of land-Procedure under Part VII Land Acquisition Act, 1894 if had 
to be followed. 
The Delhi Improvement Trust (set up under the U.P. Town Impro-
vement Act (8 of 1908) extended to the territory of Delhi) prepared 
and notified under the Act an industrial development scheme inten-
ded to secure the growth of an industrial area so as to induce a flow 
of population away from the crowded parts of Delhi. Land in the 
area was to be developed by the Trust and a part of the land was 
to be allotted to industrial concerns fot construction of industrial 
building and the rest for construction of residential and other 
buildings, Under the scheme one particular company was to be al-
lotted a certain acreage of land but the land covered by the scheme 
was found inadequate for this purpose. A supplementary 
scheme 
was therefore notified modifying the original scheme and providing 
for the acquisition of an additional area of land, to be sold to the 
company, Under the terms of sale this additional area wa• to be 
developed by the Company, The appellants, whose lands were sought 
to be compulsorily acquired under the supplementary scheme, sued 
the Trust challenging the legality of the scheme and the award made 
in the acquisition proceedings. The Subordinate Judge decreed the 
suit but on appeal the High Court reversed this decision. 
In the appeal to this Court three questions fell for determina-
tion: (i) whether acquisition of land of the appellants under the 
supplementary scheme was for the purposes of the Act; (ii) whether 
for executing the supplementary scheme the Trust had power to 
compulsorily acquire land; and (hli) whether land of the appellants 
could be acquired only in the manner provided by Part VII of the 
Land AcquiSition Act, 1894. 
HELD: The High Court was right in refusing to decree the suit. 
(i) The .original and supplementary schemes had to be regarded 
as one composite scheme conceived in the interests of industrial 
development. The original scheme was primarily a town expansion 
scheme within the meaning of the Act; and the 
supplementary 
scheme was framed for the further progress of and to effectuate the 
purpose of the original scheme Acquisition of land for industrial 
development and making provision for the residence of employees 
in the industries would clearly fall within the terms 
of s.24(h), 
read with s.32. 
The provisions of the Act would not justify acquisition of land 
with a view to handing it over to an industrial concern for private 
gain. But this was not the position in the present case, as a scheme 
8Ul'RF.llE COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 8Ul'P. 8.C.Jl. 
which contemplated acquisition of land for affectuating the object 
of the original scheme was not a device to acquire land for the pri-
vate gain of an industrialist. The general supervision and control 
over the execution of the supplementary scheme, as over the origi-
nal scheme, was retained by the Trust and the Compnay was to 
develop the' land subject to control under the Town Planning 
Scheme. [35 C, F, G, H] 
A 
B 
(ii) Power to acqufre land compulsorily was conferred by s.23 
(a) which in terms authorised acquisition by purchase, exchange or 
otherwise of any property necessary or affected by the execution of 
the scheme, and this provision could be incorporated in any of the 
improvement schemes of the type mentfoned in s.:l<t. The power 
could also be exercised under ss.32, 55 and 5G. 
Under the provisions 
relating to other classes of schemes express provision with regard to 
acquisition of land was made and such express provision was ab-
sent in s.32 dealing with town expansion schemes. But that would C 
not justify the inference that the provisions of s.23(a) relating to 
acquisition of land necessary for or afTected 
by the execution 
of the scheme were not available in sanctioning a town expansion 
scheme. Were it otherwise, s.23(a) would not have application to 
any scheme at all [36 B-E] 
(iii) The provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894, did not ha

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