RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 03-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
A 
RAM KRISHAN MAHAJAN 
>-
v. 
-
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
JULY 3, 2007 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
-, 
Punjab Municipal Act. 1911: 
c 
Sections 192 and 52-Scheme contemplated thereunder~Acquisition 
of lands therefor-Scope-Sections 4 and 5 of the Land Acquisition Act. 
1894. 
Notifications were issued by the Chandigarh Administration under 
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands were sought to be 
D acquired for Scheme Nos.2 and 3 and were spread over eleven Pockets within 
the Notified Area of Mani Majra, which has since vested in the Municipal 
Corporation of Chandigarh. Pockets..1 to 6 related to Scheme No.2, l\·hile 
Pockets 9 to 11 related to Scheme No.3 which has been rejected by the High 
Court by its impugned judgment and order. The acquisition proceedings had 
E been challenged by filing several writ petitions which have been rejected by 
the High Court. Hence, these appeals. 
On the basis of contentions advanced by the parties the core issue that 
emerged for adjudication was-whether the acquisition is for a "building 
scheme" as contemplated under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 
F 1911 or whether it is only a development plan for providing better facilities to 
·+ 
the inhabitants of the area by way ofresidential, commercial and medical 
facilities which are within the contemplation of Section 52(2)(c) of the Act of 
~
1911. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD 1.1. Since the lands being acquired was not for a "building 
scheme" under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, but for a 
development plan to provide facilities to the public, such as those within the 
-\ 
contemplation of Section 52(2)(c) of the Act, to which the municipal fund could 
H be applied. The procedure contemplated under Section 192 of the Act was, 
34 
t 
RAM ~RI SHAN MAHAJAN, .. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH 
35 
.. 
therefore, not required to be followed. tpara 111141-G-HI 
A 
-.;' 
1.2. The objection that the municipal fund could not be applied for 
providing residential, commercial and medical facilities is liable to be rejected. 
The facilities that a municipality is empowered to pro,·ide under the Act may 
involve acquisition of land as it is required for the purpose of the Act and 
therefore, it may make a request to the State Government to acquire the lands B 
required for the purpose, and bear the cost of acquisition. 
(Para 131142-H; 43-AI 
y 
1.3. Since the denlopment work undertaken by the Notified Area 
Committee could be undertaken by it under the pro,·isions of the Punjab 
Municipal Act and, therefore, the permission granted under t~e Punjab c 
Periphery Act, 1952 is not tainted with illegality. I Para 141143-EJ 
1.4. In view of admitted position as regard the issuance of the 
Notifications in the official gazette and the publication of the Notifications in 
two daily newspapers circulating in the area, wide publicity was given in the 
locality by beat of drums on two dates as is evident from the notings in the D 
file made contemporaneously many years ago and thus no reason to doubt the 
> 
same, the substance of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act had been duly published in the locality in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act. I Para 191148-F-H; 49-AI 
1.5. Since the permission originally granted under Section 11 of the E 
Punjab Periphery Act, 1952 referred to only Pockets I to Ill but the same 
were later on converted into six Pockets. Thus, even though six Pockets are 
not mentioned in the permission, the three Pockets for which the permission 
was granted included the land of the appellant falling under the new Pocket 
no. 5. The contemporaneous documents also substantiate the plea of the 
f 
respondents that the grant of permission under Section 1 I of the Periphery F 
Act, 1952 related to the lands ultimately acquired and though, originally there 
were only three Pockets they were subsequently converted into six Pockets, 
. 
but the lands remained the same. I Para 15] (143-F-H; 144-DJ 
1.6. The discrimination urged by the appellants that the State had not 
notified for acquisition lands over which buildings had been erected and, G 
therefore, in accordance \\ith the said policy their lands should also ha,·e been 
kept out of acquisition as they were the owners in possession of the land in 
"" 
) 
question, were running their business of lime and limestone on the said land 
for the last more than 25 ye

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