LAXMI CHAND versus INDORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, INDORE AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 24-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

686 
LAXMI CHAND 
A 
v. 
INDORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LNDORE AND ORS. 
February 24, 1975 
[K. K. MATHEW, V. K. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Town lmprovemellt Trust Act 1960-W/Sether a ltousing 
B 
scheme can contain features of industrial and other 1zon-housi11g scheme-Malafide 
acquisition i11 the absence of any prol'ision whether tribunal can award fot,~rest 
from the date of taking possession of t/1e property till the date of determination of 
1compe11satio11. 
The petitioner owned certain land. There was an earlier attempt to acquire 
the land of the petitioner by sanctioning a housing accommodation scheme by the 
Indore Improvfatent Trust under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust 
C 
Act, 1960. The said scheme was, however, cancelled. The petitioner wanted to 
develop his land for industrial purposes and, therefore, obtained No Obji:ction 
Certificates from various Government Departments as well as from the Trust. 
The petitioner got his land converted from agricultural purpose to industrial pur-
pose subject to the limitation that the construction work had to be approv1:d by 
the Trust. The Trust, however, refused the No Obj'ection Certificate for develop-
ment of the land on individual basis on the 2round that a scheme was being 
' 
approved for the land in question and other neighbouring lands. The Trust framed 
a scheme which included the land of the Detitioner also. The Trust served a notice 
D 
to acquire the petitioner's land for the purpose of the scheme. The petitioner 
f
submitted his objection stating that the land was being developed into industrial 
i
area and several small scale industries were functioning there and, as such, deve-
~,
lopment was alP~ady in progress. Thereafter, the Trust published a notice acquir-
ing the said land. 
Before the Trust could take possession of the petitioner's 
land the !letitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court. 
It was contended on behalf af the petitioners : 
(1) The Housing Accommodation Scheme is invalid because it does 
not specify the class of inhabitants for whom the same has been 
made. 
-
(2) The scheme being a Housing Accommodation Scheme it is for resi-
dential oc:upation only and it is not competent to include plans 
for industrial purposes. 
E 
( 3) Section 31 of the Act does not empower the Trust to frame a 
F 
scheme for industrial purposes at all. 
( 4) There is no application of the mind in terms of section 45 in :making 
the Scheme. 
(5) Thi; acquisition of the 
land for the 
purpose of the 
Scheme is 
malafide. 
( 6) Since the Act rr.akes no provision for payment of interest from 
the date of delivery of possession of the land to the Trust till the 
G 
determination of compensation by the Tribunal, 
acquisition of the 
land is violative of article 31 (2) of the Constitution. 
Petitioner has not challenged vires of any provisions of the Act. 
HELD : ( 1) Section 31 of the Act permits combining two or more schemes 
or supplementing some special features of a particular scheme in another scheme. 
There is no bar in framing a housing accommodation ~cheme with somi: of the 
features of industrial scheme. 
A housing 
accommodation 
scheme need not 
H 
necessarily be residential scheme only. It can admit of providing housing acco-
mmodation for any other purpose or object. There is nothing in section 31 or 
anv other provision o~ the Act disabling the Trust from framing schf:me for 
industrial purpose. 
[690£-G] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
L,\XMI CHAND v. INDORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST (Goswami, J.) 
687 
(2) Section 45 requires that while framini: the scheme the inherent utility, 
efficiency and adequacy of the scheme and the objections and representations of 
the perwns have to be taken into consideration. The scheme in question was 
open for inspection. There was no ambiguity or vagueness of the scheme or its 
purpose. 
Where factual satisfaction is evident formal recitals being omitted 
may not matter. 
At any rate, section 52 (2) puts a final seal of imprimatur 
on the scheme after publication of the sanction of the Government. 
[69 lC-D] 
(3) Acquisition is not malafide .. No oblique motive can be inputed to the 
Trust in ma:ldng the impugned scheme. There is no allegation of malafide against 
the 
S:";~ G0vernment whose sanction was a pre-requisite for the acquisition. 
The order of acquisition cannot, therefore. 
be characterised as 
ma/afide. 
[6910-H] 
(4) It is true that there is no provision for awarding interest unlike u

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