THE ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE CHARKHI DADRI AND ANR. versus RAMJI LAL BAGLA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 335 · Decided: 26-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE 
CHARKHI DADRI AND ANR. 
v. 
RAMJI LAL BAGLA AND ORS. 
JULY 26, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. 
A 
B 
Section 44-A-Acquisition of land-Implementing a Scheme-Not ex-
C 
ecuted within time specified-No extension granted-Proviso to S.44-A a fonn 
of governmental control over statutory bodies-No outer limit 
prescribed-Government not liable to restore land to erstwhile owners. 
Interpretation of Statutes:Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Section 
44-A-Expression "shal!''-Scheme not executed within time specified-Con-
D 
sequences of non-Compliance-Not provide<J:.-Held: directory not man-
datory. 
A notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement 
Act, 1922 was issued proposing to acquire approximately 46.51 acres of 
land within the boundaries of Charkhi Dadri Municipality for implement-
E 
ing a scheme (No. 1-B) prepared by Charkhi Dadri Improvement Trust 
under Sec. 24 read with Section 28(2) of the Act. 
Pursuant to the above Notification/Scheme, proceedings were in-
itiated for acquiring the requisite extent of the land and an award passed 
on November 3, 1976. The compensation determined under the award was 
paid and possession of the land was also taken by the Improvement Trust 
on January 19, 1977. 
F 
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court for 
quashing the scheme as it was not executed within the period of five years G 
specified in section 44-A of the Act, which was allowed. Aggrieved by the 
High Court's Judgment the appellants preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that once possession is 
taken of the land acquired, the title to the land vests in the Trust; that 
non-completion of the scheme within the period of S years cannot nullify H 
335 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the acquisition; and that Section 44-A of the Act is directory and not 
mandatory. 
B 
c 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that Section 44-A is 
a mandatory provision; that on the expiry of the five year period, the 
scheme becomes inoperative; and that the land which has not been utilised 
for the purpose of the scheme has to be returned to the erstwhile owners. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : 1:1. It is an undisputed fact that the scheme could not be 
implemented in full within the period of five years specified in Section 44-A 
of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The said period was also not 
extended in any manner by the Government. (342-G] 
1.2. The Section while using the expression "shall" does not provide 
the consequence of non-compliance with its requirement. Hence it cannot 
D 
be held to be mandatory. Such non-compliance cannot also result in 
divesting of title of the Trust, nor the land acquired has to be restored to 
the erstwhile owners. (343-E, DJ 
E 
F 
Manbodhan Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P., A.l.R. (1959) S.C. 912, 
relied on. 
1.3. Section 44-A of the Act is one of the provisions which seeks to 
safeguard the interest of the owners of the land, but that does not mean 
that it must be given a meaning and content which it was never intended 
to comprehend and the language whereof is totally inadequate to mean 
what is sought to be attributed to it. A provision has to be read and 
understood in the context of the entire scheme of the enactment. (346-E] 
2. The proviso to Section 44-A empowers the Government to extend 
the said period. The proviso does not prescribe the outer limit beyond 
which extension cannot be granted. The proviso is a form of governmental 
G control over those statutory bodies. [343-F] 
3. S.44-A does have a purpose (as explained in the judgment). By 
treating it as directory in nature, it is not becoming superflous. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6537 of 
H 
1995. 
M.C. CHARKHI DAD RI v. RL BAGLA [B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J.) 
337 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.1984 of the Punjab & A 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1542 of 1983. 
Dhruv Mehta and S.K. Mehta for the Appellants. 
Prem Malhotra for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents on C 
the ground that the point raised in the writ petition is clearly covered in 
favour of the writ petitioners- respondents by the ratio

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