S. GURDIAL SINGH AND ORS. versus LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 02-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
S. GURDIAL SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
APRIL 2, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922: Sections 24, 28 (2), 36 and 48. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1) and 18. 
Land acquisition-Notification and declaration---W1it challenging ac-
quisition-Ground that notification and declaration were vague-Dismissal of 
writ by Higlz Corm-Appeal before Supreme Colllt---Held the Notification 
issued in the presellt case indicates the existence of the map and the detailed 
scheme for the inspection of the persons interested in the scheme-It was 
D reiterated in the declaration published under Section 6 of the Central Act-A 
scheme was also annexed to the declaration under these circumstances, 
though the notification has not disclosed the public plllpose, it cannot be said 
that the scheme itself is vague and is liable to be quashed. 
E 
F 
State of Tamil Nadu v. L.N. Krishnan, [1996] 1 SCC 250 and State of 
Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohammed Yousef, [1991] 4 SCC 224, referred to. 
Land acquisition--Landowners--Entitlement for altemative site-Law 
laid down in Pis ta Devi's case cannot be unif onnly and mechanically ex-
tended to all cases unless there is express scheme. 
State of U.P. v. Pista Devi, [1966] 4 SCC 251, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1905 of. 
1986. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.85 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2575 of 1985. 
Manoj Swarup, Vikas Vashisht for Ms. Minakshi Vij for the Appel-
!ants 
H 
Rohit Aggarwal for R.S. Suri for the Respondent. 
516 
r 
-
S. GURDIAL SINGH v. LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
517 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, made on 
November 26, 1985 in CWP No. 2575/85, dismissing the writ petition in 
limine. 
The admitted position is that the respondent-Trust had published on 
September 4, 1975 two notifications under Sections 36 and 48 of the Punjab 
Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short, the 'Act'), which are equivalent 
to the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
A 
B 
(for short, the 'Central Act), respectively on 20.10.1972 and 19.9.1975, C 
acquiring a total extent of 0.3 acres of land with boundaries, stated in the 
scheme framed under Section 24 read with Section 28(2) of the Act 
including the statement made therein with a general map of the locality 
comprised in the declaration under Section 41(1) of the Act which is 
equivalent to Section 6 of the Central Act. An enquiry under Section 11 of D 
the Central Act was conducted and the award was made on January 19, 
1977. Thereafter, the appellants sought a reference. Accordingly, reference 
under Section 18 came to be made to the Civil Court. In 1985, the 
appellants filed writ petition in the High Court challenging the notification 
issued and the declaration under Section 41 on the ground that the notifica-
tions and declaration were vague and, therefore, the acquisition was bad E 
in law. The High Court, as stated above, dismissed the writ petition in 
limine. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
This Court has recently considered the entire case law and held in 
State of Tamil Nadu v. L.N. KJishnan, (1996] 1 SCC 250 that the notification F 
cannot be quashed on the ground of vagueness. Therein, notification under 
Section 4(1) indicated that the lands were needed for the housing scheme 
to meet the demands made by various sectors of the population under K.K. 
Nagar Further Extension Scheme. That scheme was found to be not vague 
and hence could not be quashed on the ground that it was vague. This 
Court has reversed the judgment in State of Tamil Na du v. A. Mohammed G 
Yousef, [1991] 4 SCC 224 wherein it was held that unless a detailed scheme 
is framed under the improved scheme, the notification under Section 4(1) 
is illegal. It is seen that the notification issued in the present case indicates 
the existence of the map and the detailed scheme for the inspection of the 
persons interested in the scheme. It was reiterated in the declaration H 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
published under Section 6 of the Central Act. A scheme was also annexed 
to the declaration. Under these circumstances, though the notification has 
not disclosed the public purpose, it cannot be said that the scheme itself 
is vague and is lia

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