LexNASIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus HARBANSLAL LAIKWANT RAJPAL AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NASIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. HARBANSLAL LAIKWANT RAJPAL AND ORS. ETC. DECEMBER 9, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 : Sections 28, 31, 37 and 127. Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 6, 9 and 16. Scheme for Acquisition of land under Town Planning Act-Reservation of land for public purpose viz. for stables and road-Subsequently land needed for another public purpose viz. infonnal housing and stab/,,_.l,and acquired under Land Acquisition Act and vested in State Govemment--On A B c a representation made by the Corporation, the Govemment had issued a D conigendum restoring the status quo ante with a slight modification-Whether the entire process required under Section 28 and Section 31 read with section 37 requires to be followed-Once a notification under Section 4(1) was published and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published, the public purpose becomes conclusive and for any variation without substantial fonnalities, it is not necessary that the entire process of re-publication of the notification under Section 28 requires to be followed-In the absence of notice or failure to serve notice, the award does not become invalid. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 16850 of F 1996 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.94 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 4024 of 1989. V.N. Ganpule and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant. U.R. Lalit and U.U. Lalit for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. 701 G H 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9S.C.R. A These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated October 14, 1994, made in W.P. No. 4023/89. Proceedings were initiated under the Maharashtra Regional & Tol\n Planing Act, 1966, (for short, the 'Act') for framing a scheme and for acquisition of the land in that behalf. The fmal develop- B ment plan was made on November 29, 1980. Notification under section 126(4) of the Act was published on August 6, 1987. It was published in the local newspaper on July 18, 1987 and in the village Chavadi on September 25, 1987. It would appear that subsequently, after Section4(1) notification and declaration under Section 6 of the (Land Acquisition Act 1/1894) were C published, notice was issued under Section 9 of the said Act on September • 16, 1989. Award came to be passed on September 22, 1989. The respon- dents filed writ petitions on September 25, 1989. The award was published on September 27, 1989. It would appear that the draft plan was issued for reservation of certain lands for the public purpose and no objections were filed. In the meanwhile, by proceedings dated December 26, 1990, the same D came to be deleted by publication of the notification on June 28, 1993 and final plan was published on September 30, 1993.0n a representation made by the Corporation, the Government had issued a corrigendum on August 19, 1994 restoring the status quo ante with a slight modification. The High Court in the impugned order, while upholding the validity of the notifica- E tion under section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, held that the award was not valid in law since there was a corrigendum issued by the Government. Consequently, the procedure provided under the Act was to be followed by operation of Section 37 of the Act. Thus these appeals by special leave. F Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respon- dents, contends that once the reservation has been deleted., status quo ante stands restored. As a consequence, the entire process required under Section 28 and Section 31 read with Section 37 requires to be followed. In this case, that was not done. The High Court was right in quashing the G award. We find no force in the contention. It is true that if any scheme is modified and the plan has become final, the procedure contemplated under Sections 28 and 31 read with Section 37 of the Act is required to be adopted. But in this case, it is seen H that as per the corrigendum what has been modified is that the entire site .- NASIKMUN.CORPN. v. HARBANSLALLAIKWANTRAJPAL 703 is now reserved for 'informal housing' and stable. Originally, the entire A area was reserved for stables and 100' wide road. The reservation was deleted earlier, as stated above, and western
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.