KHADIM HUSSAIN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 18-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
/ 
• 
KHADIM HUSSAIN 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 
'December 18, 1975 
I 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
U.P. Town /Jnprovement Act, 1919-Sec. 36 U.P. Avas Evarn Vikas Pari~ 
shad Adhi11iya1n 1966-Sec. 32(1)-Trust appointed under an earlier Act-
Tenn of office took place under subsequent Act-If invalid-Change in the 11an1e 
of the scheme-I/ invalidates. 
On March 21. 1963, the trustees of the Gorakhpur Town Improvement Trust 
\Vere appointed by a notification under s. 4 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 
B 
1919. The Trust notified a Housing Scheme on March 13, 1965, under s. 36. 
c· 
The 1919 Act was repealed by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 
1966, and, the Housing Scheme was finally sanctioned under s. 32(1) of the 
1966 Act. 
. 
The appellant challenged in the High Court the validity of the Housing 
Scheme, but, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
On appeal to this Court, it was contended (i) that the trust was never pro-
perly constituted because the commencement of the terms of office of 
first 
D' 
trustees took place only after the repeal of the 1919 Act; (ii) that, the scheme. 
~is sanctioned by the Trust, not being the same as the one which was first notified 
under the 1919-Act. could not be continued under the provisions of s. 97 of 
the 1966-Act; and (iii) that, the notification under s. 32(1) of 1966-Act, which 
was to be equated with a notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 
11894, was invalid because it v.:as not published within two years after the com-
mencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act. 1967. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
E 
HELD: (1) (a) Section 100 of the 1919-Act which deals with validation of 
acts and proceedings. completely refutes the argument based upon a specious 
distinction between the appointment of members of the Trust and the constitu-
tion of the Trust and upon an unwarranted condition sought to be imposed upon 
the competence of members of the Trust to act. [5D-EJ 
(b) A Trust dq.ly incorporated by the terms of a statute cannot be lacking 
in power or competence to act at all simply because s. 8 meant to notify the 
F. 
commencement of offi.ce
1 of the first trustees only under the Act, has not been 
complied with simultaneously with or soon after the appointment of the first 
trustees. [5E-GJ 
( c) The wholc1 object of s. 8 is only to determine the date of commencement 
of the term of office of the members of the Trust in order to fix the date of 
its expiry so as to enable fresh appointments to be made in time. 
Assuming 
!that the Gorakhpur Improvement Trust was first constituted in 1963, there is 
no provision indicating that the constitution of the Trust was not complete as 
soon as it was declared by statute 'and a Chairman and Trustees took charge of 
their offices by reason of their appointment as trustees. 
This had been done by 
Ootification under s. 4(2). Therefore, the need for a notification under s. 8 had 
not been felt till the expiry of the term of office of the first trustees drew near. 
This explains why the subsequent notificaMon which was really a corollary of 
a notification under s. 4(2) took place so late ·when the three years' period of 
tion proceedings. 
[IOG-H; llB-C] 
(d) Even, assuming that the date of the coming into force of the 1966-Act 
\Vas subsequent to February 21, 1966, absence of a notification under s. 8 could 
not invalidate any proceeding of the Trust. Even if a notification under s. 8 
should have followed soon after the notification under s. 4(2) of the 1919-Act, 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
yet, s. 100 prevents any such technical irregularity from invalidating any pro-
ceeding of the Trust, including the framing and implementation of the scheme. 
[6B-D] 
c 
D 
(2) The appellant has not shown how any feature of the originally framed 
scheme, apart from an acquisition by it of a new Hindi appellation. \Vas altered 
sd that it could not be continued under s. 97(3) of the 1966-Act. 
The argu-
ment is based on speculation about the changed character of the h\'O supposedly 
separate and different schemes. 'The scheme had been referred to by _the san1e 
name in sd far as the locality to which it related was concerned. The plots in-
volved were admitted to be the same both in the initial and the final notification. 
[6E-GJ 
(3) (a) The object of the notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition 
Act is to ensure that the Go
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.