JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SITA RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 03-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
A 
v. 
SITA RAM AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3,1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
B 
Land Acquisition : 
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 : 
S. 52--Notification published-Act repealed-Decision to continue the C 
acquisition under the repealed A ct-Fresh notifications issued-Challenged in 
writ petitions-High Court holding that the notification issued was not valid 
in law-On appeal held, framing of a scheme is a pre-condition for acquisi-
tion of land is not a correct proposition· of law-Notification for acquisition 
cannot be quashed on that account. 
D 
Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, [1996) 3 SCC 1 & State of Tamil Nadu 
& Ors. v. L. Krishnan & Ors., [1996) 1 SCC 250, relied on. 
State of Tamil Nadu v. Mohd. Yousef, [1991) 4 SCC 224, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 704-731 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.93 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 1124, 1187-98, 1236-39, 1241, 1245, 1264-66, 1366, 
E 
1383-85, 1424 and 1820 of 1984. 
F 
S.K. Bhattachary for the Appellant. 
Sushi! Kumar Jain and Krishan Singh Chauhan for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
These appeals by special leav<'. arise from the judgment dated Sep-
tember 9,' 1993 of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court made 
G 
in C.W.P. No. 1124/84 and batch. 
· H 
859 
~ 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Notification under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement 
Act, 1959 was published on October 8, 1979. Thereafter, the Jaipur 
~.t 
Development Authority took a decision after the Jaipur Development 
Authority Act had come into force to continue the acquisition under the 
-
repealed Act. Consequently, fresh notification was issued on April 20, 1984. 
B The same case to be challenged in the Writ Petitions. The Division Bench 
of the High Court has held that unless the scheme under the Jaipur 
Development Authority Act has been properly framed, notification issued 
is not valid in law. This question was considered by this Court in Pratap v. 
~ 
State of Rajasthan, (996] 3 SCC 1. In fact the decision under appeal was 
expressly held not a good law. This Court had held thus : 
c 
"14. There is also no merit in the contention of the learned counsel 
for the appellants that the decision of the Division Bench of the 
Rajasthan High Court rendered in 1993 in Narain case can in any 
way affect the present proceedings. Firstly, the said decision of 
D 
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is not final because 
the Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3100-3127of1994 (the present 
.... 
app~) have been filed and the same are pending in this Court; 
.. 
secondly this decision has not been approved by a Full Bench of 
the Rajasthan High Court in its judgment dated 1.11.1995 in Urban 
E 
Improvement Trust V. State of Rajasthan and the other connected 
cases. In this judgment, dealing with Narain case the Full Bench 
observed as follows : 
The Division Bench of this Court in the case Narain v. State of 
Rajasthan, has held that the acquisition proceedings cannot be 
F 
taken in the absence of sanctioned notified scheme. This view has 
~-
been taken by interpreting only para 9 of the Supreme Court 
decision of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samti Ltd. case to the 
facts and circumstances of the case before the Division Bench. 
Consideration of paras 8 and 11 of the Supreme Court decision 
G 
does not find place in the decision of the Division Bench. As stated 
---
above, the combined effect of paras 8, 9 and 11 of the Supreme 
~ 
Court decision seems to be otherwise. With utmost respect, it is 
difficult to agree with the observations made and view expressed 
..... 
by the Division Bench in the case of Narain as regards the decision 
of the Supreme Court in the case of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari 
H 
Samiti Ltd. 
-
. 
. . 
JAIPURDEVELOPMENTAU1HORITYv. SITARAM 
861 
. 
' 
. . 
',· 
~ '. 
. 
It is indeed u~f ortunate that the judginent of the Division Bench A 
in Narain case was relied on, wheri the saine had beert overruled 
by the Full Bench of that Court without referring to the Full Bench 
decision. Furthermore even on merits we find that the said decision 
of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Narain case 
does not lay down the correct law and the later decision of the B 
Full Bench is correctly decided. The contention which was raised 
before the High Court, and it succeeded, in Narain case was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.