INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SHRI BALAKRISHNA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 05-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
SHRI BALAKRISHNA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 5, 1996 
\K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
MP. Town Improvement T111st Act 1960/M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram 
Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 : 
Ss.52, 70 and 71 !Adhiniyam 54-Acquisition of land for public pur-
pose-Notification under s.71(2) published on 22.07.1973-Writ petition by 
land owners on the ground that since possession was not taken front thenz as 
provided under sub-sections (3) and (4) of s.71, the scheme has failed-Held, 
scheme framed by the Tntst was sanctioned by the Govemment---Once 
sanction for acquisition of land was accorded under s. 70 and Notification 
A 
B 
c 
was published under s.71(2), the land should be deemed to have been vested D 
in the State free from all encumbrances-Vesting is complete on the date of 
publication of Notification under s.71(2)-Vesting is not kept in jeopardy or 
postponed or does not beconze inconzplete till actual possession is taken by 
the autlwrities under s. 71 (3) or s. 71 ( 4 hteps required to be taken under 
Sub-section (3) or ( 4) of s. 71 are only ministerial acts-Since the proceedings 
are pending s.54 of 1973 Adhiniyam has no application. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10690 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.94 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Misc. P. No. 885 of 1987. 
A.K. Chitale, S.K. Gambhir and Vivek Gambhir for the Appellant. 
U.N. Bachhawat, A.P. Dhamija and S.K. Jain for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
E 
F 
G 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division H 
283 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Bench of the M.P. High Court made on April 19, 1994 in Misc. Petition 
No. 885/87. The admitted facts are that Town Improvement Scheme No. 
54 was framed under the provisions of the M.P. Town Improvement Trust 
Act (for short, 'Trust Act'). The Scheme consists of 629.43 acres of land 
B 
c 
situated in Indore of which 4.85 acres is the subject matter in this appeal. 
The Government had sanctioned this scheme under Section 54 of the Act. 
On September 16, 1966, the scheme was published in the State Gazette 
under Section 52(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is a conclusive evidence that 
the scheme was framed and sanction was duly granted by the Government. 
In other words, it has given conclusiveness lo the public purpose. The 
Government under Section 70 of the Act accorded sanction for the acquisi-
tion of the land. Notification under Section 70(1) of the Act was published 
on August 22, 1973. Consequently, by operation of Section 71(2) of the Act, 
the land on and from the date of such publication, stood vested absolutely 
in the trust free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) gives power to the 
trust to give notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession 
D of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof, to the trust or to any 
person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service 
of the notice. In case the person in possession does not surrender or refuses 
to deliver possession, under sub-section (4), the trust has been empowered 
to take possession of the land and for that purpose cause such force to be 
used as may be necessary to take possession of the land. 
E 
F 
The respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court questioning 
the validity of the acquisition on the ground that since possession was not 
taken from them, the land did not vest in the State and, therefore, the 
scheme had failed. The High Court in the impugned order relying upon 
the scheme in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 
'Act'), in pa1ticular Section 16 thereof and in view of the cases decided in 
that behalf, held that since possession was not taken, the scheme has 
lapsed. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
It is contended by Shri A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel for the 
G appellant, that the High Court was wholly wrong in its conclusion that the 
scheme had lapsed on failure to take possession of the land. He has 
specifically drawn our attention to Section 71(2) of the Trust Act. Shri 
Bachhawat, learned senior counsel for the respondent, now sought to place 
reliance, though not pressed in the High Cour\, on section 54 of M.P. 
H Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniydm, 1973 (for short, the 'Adhiniyam). It 
-
INDORE DEV. AlITHORITY v. BALAKRISHNA 
285 
is c

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