STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MAHADEO DEOMAN RAI ALIAS KALAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 19-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
A 
v. 
MAHADEO DEOMAN RAI ALIAS KALAL AND OTHERS 
APRIL 19, 1990 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, LAUT MOHAN SHARMA 
B 
AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: S. 4--Land reserved for public 
::r· 
purpose-Whether permissible to modify or substitute the scheme. 
>-
The respondent was permitted by the Municipal Council to 
construct a building on the disputed land. Later, the site was reserved 
under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for a town planning scheme. 
When the respondent was prevented from proceeding with the 
construction he filed a suit for damages. The Municipal Council, how-
ever, by a resolution passed on February 13, 1967 decided to accord 
permission. The suit was thereafter withdrawn. The State Government 
appointed a high power committee to examine the entire matter. The 
aforesaid resolution was rescinded by the Municipal Council. 
The respondent made a fresh application in July, 1968 which was 
kept in abeyance. He thereupon filed .a writ petition before the High 
Court in 1969. During the pendency of the case, the Municipal Council 
passed a resolution on June 29, 1970 deciding to replan the scheme with 
respect to the area in qnestion in accordance with the recommendations 
of the high power committee. 
The High Court by its judgment dated April 18, 1972 directed the 
Municipal Council to dispose of the application in accordance with law. 
The latter, however, by its order dated November 21, 1972 rejected it 
on the basis of the 1970 resolution. 
In the writ application challenging the said order it was contended 
for the respondent that the disputed question must be deemed to have 
been finally settled in his favour in view of the earlier judgment which 
was binding ·on the. parties by reason of rule of res judicata. For the 
State it was contended that no final decision was arrived at in the earlier 
case. The High Court allowed the writ application on the basis of con-
structive res judicata. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
In the appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellants 
H 
533 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
A that the previous judgment contd not be interpreted as a direction 
commanding the Municipal Council to allow the proposed construction, 
and that the plots were urgently needed for providing parking space for 
vehicles. For the respondent it was contended that the resolution of 
February 13, 1967 was passed by way of a compromise between the 
parties and acting thereupon he withdrew his suit, it was, therefore, 
B 
binding on the Municipal Council, that the 1970 resolution should be 
completely ignored and the Municipal Council should not be allowed to 
bypass the judgment of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: J. The resolution dated February 13, 1967 was not bind-
C ing on the Municipal Council so as to disable it to take a different 
decision later. It was not the result of a compromise between the 
parties. [538D; 537E-F] 
2.1 At the best for the respondenf, it could be assumed that when 
D the said resolution in bis favour was pa$S'ed the acquisition of the land 
was not so urgently essential so as to call for his dispossession. But for 
that reason it could not be said that the plots bad become immune from 
being utilised for any other pu!Jlic purpose for ever. [538B-C] 
2.2 The question as to whether a particular scheme framed in 
E exerciSe of statutory provisions is in the public interest or not has to be 
determined according to the need of the time and a final decision for alt 
times to come cannot be taken. Such a scheme may serve the public 
purpose at a given point of time but due to change of circumstances it 
may become essential to modify or substitute it by another scheme. The 
requirements of the community do not remain static, they indeed, go on 
F 
varying with the evolving process of social life. Accordingly, the State 
or a body like the Municipal Council entrusted with a public duty to 
look after the requirements of the community has to assess the situation 
from time to time and vary the scheme periodically to meet the changing 
needs of the public. In the instant case, the high power committee 
appointed by the State had given a report stating that the land in question 
G 
~ould be needed for the proper circulation of traffic. [537H; 538; 537F-G I 
3. There was no scope for application of the principle of res 
judicata. By the judgment dated April 18, 1972, the High Court did not 
finally decide

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