PATNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST versus SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI & OTHERS

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 07-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

Dttm~tr 7. 
812 SUPRE1\1E COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP. 
PATNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
v. 
I 
Sl\fT. LAKSHl\H DEVI & OTHERS 
(JAFEH hLur,J. L. KArun, K. SunnARAo andJ. R. 
l\:fUDIIOLKAH, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition-Acquisition/or Trust--Notijication under 
ss. 4 and 6 after Bihar Act came into force-Validity-If repeal<'l 
by Bihar Toum Planningaml Improvement Tru3t Act, 1951 (3-5·of 
1951)-!Vords "has been previously. made"-Oonstructian of 
-ss. 33, 46, 71-LanJ. Acqui.•ition Act, 1891 (1of1891), .ss, 4, 
6, 50. 
. 
. 
- . -
• 
A common question of law arose in these appeals namely, 
whether the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust 
Act, 1951 (Act 35 1951), replaced the Land Acquisition Act 
(I of 1894) in the matter of acquisition of land for the said 
Trust and whether the notifications issued by the Government 
of Bihar under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were 
valid, after the Bihar Act had come into force. The High 
Court held the notifications of the State Government ultra vires 
and illegal. On the principle . of generalia specialibus nan 
derogant and also that if a statute directs a thing to be done in 
a certain way that thi_ng shall not, even if there be no negative 
words be done in any other way.· 
. 
. 
Held, (per Imain, Kapur and Mudholkar, lJ.), that s.71 
of the Dihar Act which modified the Land Acquisition Act itself 
contemplates the machinery of the Land Acquisition· Act as 
modified even for the purpose of acquiring land for the Trust. 
It does not exclude the Land Acquisition Act; on the contrary 
it makes it applicable but subject to its modifications and 
exceptions. The first relevant modification is by sub-cl. (I) of 
clause (2) of the schedule. There the first notice under s. 46 · of 
the Bihar Act is substituted for and has the same clfcct as a noti-
fication under s. 4 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act but that is 
subject to an important exc:eption . and that exception is a 
notification under s. 4 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act or a -
declaration under s. 6 of th.it Act which "has been previously · 
made and is in force". The words "has been previously 
made" did not merely connote the issuing of a notification 
before the Bihar Act was passed, but include ·all notifications 
made prior or anterior to the first publication of a notice of an 
improvement sche'!'e ui:de_r ~· 4_5 of the ~ih.:;r '}c~: 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
813 
Merctr Henderaon's Trmtees v. 
Dunferul-ine District 
Committee, 37 Sc. L. R. 119, referred to. 
Held, further, that the power of the State Government 
to acquire land for the Trust was not taken away by the Bihar 
,\ct was further shown by s. 33 of tint Act which deals with 
the preparation of a Master Plan by the Trust, which has to 
designate the land subject to compulsory acquisition by the 
various authorities mentioned therein including the State 
Goverrunent. 
Jlelrl, also, that s. 50 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 
would be equally available for being put into force for the pur-
pose of a rl'rust, which shows that the intention of the lcgisl<l· 
ture was not to exclude the functions of the Land Acquisition 
Act such as ss. 4, 6, 50 etc. in the matter of acquisition of land 
for the purpose of a trust. 
Per, Subba Rao; J. 
Under the Act, the Trust was 
authorised to implement the improvement schen1es in a parti· 
cular way and for the purposes of implementing them to acquire 
land in a prescribed manner. If that be so, the Trust was 
bound to implement the scheme in the manner prescribed and 
could not resort to any other method. The broad scheme of 
the Act also supports the conclusion that the Trust could only 
implement the scheme involving acquisition of land in the 
manner provideu by the Act, that is to say in accordance with 
the land acquisition provisions 
incorporated in the Act by 
reference and therefore the two principles noticed by the High 
Court were apposite. 
Secr<tary of State v. llindmtan Co-operative Insurance 
Society Ltd. A. I. R. 1931 P. G. 149 and Ex-P.arte Stephens, 
(1876) 3 Ch. D. 659, relied on. 
The saving of notification issued under s. 4 or s. 6 of the 
Land Acquisition Act in para. 2 (I) of the schedule of the Act 
applies to such notifications issued before or after passing of 
the Act, but prior to the issue of the fast pubulktion or notice 
of implementation of the scheme under s. 46 of the Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals 
Nos. 683 to 686of1962. 
. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
a

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