SARWAN SINGH ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 1007 · Decided: 12-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1007 
.A 
SARWAN SINGH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. 
December 12, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, c. J., P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, H" R. KHANNA 
B 
AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.J 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
· P1111jab Town lmprovemellf Act, 1922-S. 59(a)-Constitutional validity of-
lf ultra vires Art. 14-Whether the Trib1111al has adopted any unrcaso11able 
principle ill determi11i11g the compe11satio11. 
The appellants' land within the municipality was acquired for a development 
scheme of the Improvement Trust. A notification was issued llnder s. 36 of 
the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. 
Aggrieved by the award of the 
Land Acquisition Collector of the Improvement Trust and the decision of the 
Tribun&l constituted under the Improvement Act the appellants challenged the 
order of the Tribunal in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High 
Court. 
On appeal to this Court it was c9~tended 0) that s. 59(a) of the Punjab 
Town Improvement Act, 1922 was ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution and 
(ii) that the Tribunal took an absolutely wrong prin:iple into consideration 
in determining the ·:ompen!ation of the lands acqufred. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
Hf·LD : (I) (a) Acquisition of land under the Improvement Act admits · 
of a reasonable basis of clas~ification and s. 59(a) is not violative of Art. 14 
of the Constitution. There can be no complaint that there is no guideline in 
the Improvement Act in determining the comJiensation since referentially. the 
principles under the Acquisition Act had been adopted and such other principles 
are also added as may be appropriate in the nature of things. The object 
of the Improvement Act being improvement of the towns c'Overs a specific, 
though wide, field. 
Under the Improvement Act there is a statutory obligation 
upon the Trnsts to frame appropriate schemes in Which case, the matter .is 
likely to take air and the public as well as the land owners may bmefit 
materia!ly from knowledge of acquisition prior to the actual notification under 
S; 36 as against a preliminary notification u.nder s. 4 of the Land Acquisition 
A:t which appears in .the gazette all of a sudden. 
Although acquisition under 
the Acquisition Act is also generally for public purpose the chara-cter of the 
acquisition under the Improvement Act is different arid the difference· has ·a 
definite and intimate nexus with the- principal object ot the Act, 
namely. 
improvement of towns. 
No valid exception can be taken to the adoption of 
the Acquisition Act with modifications to suit the requirements of the Improve-
ment Act, and in particular, to the deletion of the provisions of appeal under 
s. 54 of the Acquisition Act. [IOI! C; 1010 E'H] 
(b) Denial of the right of appeal available u,nder the Acquisition Act docs 
not make s. 59(a) ultra vires Art. 14 of ·the Constitution. 
Th~· le1?i•la1L1re, 
by making the order of the Tribunal final under s. 59 ( d) sects to avoid delay 
in the course of litigation to defeat the purpose of the schemes framed under 
the Act. 
Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and me.re denial or 
taking away of such a ri1?ht under the law c11nnot be consi.dered as an 
infringement of a person's fundamental right. [IOI! DJ 
(2) 
Tribunal has not adopted anv unreasonable prin:iples in i~noring 
the sales 1Jutt have taken place after the date of notification under s. 36. The 
notification under s. 36 being of September 16, 1960. that is the material date 
which should be reckoned for purposes of determining compensation. The 
sale that takes place after the date of notification under s. 36, as distinct from 
one under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be taken as a reasonable 
guide for determination of compensation under s. 23 of the Acquisition A.ct 
as amended by the Improvement Act, f 1012 B-Cl 
toos 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.c.R. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuRtSU!CTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 345 & 347 
A 
to 349 of 1971. 
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated the February 5, 1970 
of· the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W. Nos. 3627 /68, 273, 
274 and 1380 of 1969. 
B. Sen, and R. L. Kohli, for the appellants. 
B. P. Singh for respondents No.3 (In C.A.No.347 /71) and respc1n-
dertt No. 2 On CA No. 345-348-349 /71). 
V .C. Mahajan (In C.A. No. 245/7 ll Harba11s Singh 
(In C.A. 
No. 347/71) 0. P. Sharma and N .. T<.. Agarwa/a (In C.A. No. 345/71) 
for respondent No. 1 (In all the appeals.) 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered ·by 
GosWAMI1 J.--The questions that a

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