STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus A. MOHAMMED YOUSEF AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 06-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
A. MOHAMMED YOUSEF AND ORS. 
AUGUST 6, 1991 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.) 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Section 4--Notification for acquisi-
tion of land for construction of houses by Tamil Nadu Housing Board 
without preparing scheme under the Madras State Housing Board Act, 
1961-Validity of. 
y 
Under Section 4 of the Land Acqnisition Act, 1894 a notification c 
was issued by the petitioners proposing to acquire the land of the 
respondents for construction of houses by the Tamil Nadn Honsing 
Board, constituted under section 3 of the Madras State Honsing Board 
Act, 1961. 
D 
The respondents challenged the impugned notification in a writ 
petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court 
holding that the public purpose mentioned in the notification was too 
vague in absence of details relating to the scheme for which the acquisi-
lion was sought to be made, and consequently the land owners could not 
effectively avail of the benefits under section SA of the Land Acquisition 
E 
Act by filing objection. This order was affirmed by the Divisio>n Bench 
r>f the High Court. 
The State-the petitioners filed this Special Leave Petition contend-
~ 
ing that the notification had adequately described the nature of the 
y 
public purpose by mentioning the proposed construction of residential 
F 
buildings and the respondents ought to have filed their objections nnder 
section 5-A instead of filing the writ petition; that the procedure in 
regard to the preparation of the scheme has to await the conclnsion of 
the land acquisition proceeding; that the land acquisition proceeding 
should not be condemned as pre-mature on the ground that the scheme 
has not been framed. 
G 
.\ 
The respondents contended that in view of the provisions of the 
Housing Board Act a proceeding for land acquisition can be commenced 
only after a scheme under the Act is framed, which has not been done in 
the present case. The land acquisition proceeding, being pre-matdl'e 
has been rightly quashed. 
H 
375 
A 
B 
c 
D 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991) 3 S.C.R. 
On the question whether the acquisition proceeding could be 
initiated only after the framing, of the proposed scheme and not earlier, 
dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the State, this Court, 
HELD: 1.01. The procedure prescribed for preparation of a 
scheme indicates that before it can be finalised, full pnblicity has to 
be given inviting objections; and in case of objections, the same have 
to be duly considered before granting sanction. Further, if anybody 
is still aggrieved, he has a right of appeal to the State Government. 
It is only after this sta:ge is over that the scheme becomes final and 
enforceable. [378F) 
1.02. Section 39 of the Madras State Housing Act, 1961 while 
enumerating the matters to be included in the scheme, speciftcally men-
tions acquisition of land in clause (a). If the acquisition is contemplated 
as. a subject matter of the scheme itself, it follows that it must await the 
preparation of the scheme wherein it will be included. [379F] 
1.03. The acquisition of the land is a part of the execution of the 
scheme itself. Since the acquisition is included in the scheme the process 
of execution of the scheme starts immediately when steps for acquisition 
are taken. [381A-B] 
I.04. If the notification under section 4 under the Land Acquisi-
E 
lion Act is published without waiting for the scheme, it will not be 
possible for the land owners to object to the proposed acquisition on the 
ground that the land is not suitable for the scheme at all, and therefore 
does not serve any publk purpose, or that another piece of land in the 
area concerned, is far more suitable, leading to the possible conclusion 
that the proposed acquisition is ma/a fide. The provisions of the Hous-
F 
ingBoardActalsosngge•;tthesame. [381-DF] 
I.OS. It will be practical and consistent with common sense to 
have the scheme f'malised before starting an acqnisition proceeding. A 
proceeding nnder the Land Acqnisition Act read with section 70 of the 
Madras Housing Board Act, can be commenced only after framing the 
G 
scheme for which the IBJnd is reqnired. The notification issned nnder 
section 4 in the present case must, therefore, be held to be pre-mature, 
and it was rightly qnasbed by the High Court. [381G-382A] 
1.06. Altbongb the initiation of the proceeding for acquisition bas 
to await framing of a scheme, it d

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