LexTRUST MAI LACHMI SIALKOTI BRADRI versus THE CHAIRMAN, AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
196! Raj1 J agannath Baksh Sing~ v. The State of Uttar Pr alee h Gojendragadkar J. 196t April 1. 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] argument that the tax levied by the Act is con- fiscatory. Besides, as we have already seen, the sche~e o~ the ~re~ent. Act . does i;iot ~isclose any const1tut10nal mfirm1ty either m its charging sections or in the sections providing for the . pro- cedure for the levy of the tax and its recotery. That is why we feel no hesitation in holding that there is no substance in the plea that the Act is a colourable piece of legislation. In the result, the petition fails and is dismiss- ed with costs. Petition dismissed. TRUST MAI LACHMI SIALKOTI BRADRI ·, ' v. THE CHAIRMAN, AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT T&UST (B. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA . AYYANGAR, J, R. MUDHOLKAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Improvement Scheme - Statutt permitting schtmt for "damaged areas" - Definition oj-Conclusivenus of $Cheme -Whether prevents challenge on ground that scheme wa• not for dan.aged area - Punjab Development and. Damaged Area• Act, 1951 (Punj. JO of 1951), ss. 2 (d) and 5 (4). · The Amritsar Improvement Trust framed a sche"mc under s. 3 of the Punjab Development and Damaged Areas Act, 1951, which empowered it to frame a scheme for the development of a damaged area. It passed a -resolution to acquire certain property of the appellant for widening a road under the scheme. The appellant contended that the scheme was with- out jurisdiction as the area "'~::a.not a "damaged area" within s. 2 (d) of the Act· which contemplated only two classes of areas, i. e. (i) areas which may, by notification,_ under the Act be declared by the Government to be "damagtd areas", and (ii) areas already notified under the Punjab Damaged Areas Act, 1949; The respondents contended that a notification 1 s.c.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 243 issu~d under the Punjab Damaged Areas Act, 1947, which declared the entire walled City of Amritsar as a "damaged area" should be "deemed to be a declaration'' under the 1949 Act because of the operation of s. 22 of the Punjab G.eneral Clauses Act and was sufficient to sustain the scheme and that the scheme could not be challenged as it had· been notified b_Y the State Government and under s. 5 (4) of the Act the publi- cation was conclusive evidence that the scheme had been duly framed and sanctioned. Held, that the scheme was without jurisdiction and that the proceedings for 'the acquisition of the appellent's property were illegal. Admittedly the area had not been declared a "damaged area eith~r under the 1951 Act or under the 1949 Act. The declaration under the 1947 Act was of no avail, firstly, becau§C there was no basis for the argument that it would be "deemed to be a declaration" under the Act of 1949 and secondly even if it were so deemed the same was not with- in the definition of ''damaged area" in the Act of 1951. The appellant was not precluded by s. 5 ( 4) from challenging the scheme and the acquisition; since the coclu- siveness postulated by s. 5 (4) was only in respect of the formalities prescribed by ss. 3, 4 and 5 and did not touch a case where there was complete lack of jurisdiction in the authorities to fr;:ime a scheme. · Crvn.. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 33lof 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 20, 1961, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 460 of 1961. . ' . 8.P. Binhaand_M. K. Madan, for the appellant. Har 'Prasad and J.P. Goyal, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. · 8. 1Jf .. Sikri, Advocate-General, Pun}ab, N. S. Bindra andP. D. Menon, for the respondent No. 3. 1962. April 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J.-The point arising for decision in this appeal by speciaUeave is a very short one and relates to the proper construction of the defini- tion of 'damaged area' in s. 2(d) of the Punjab 19112 Trust Ma• Lflclmi Siatkoli H1adri v. The Chairman, Amritsar lmprov1ment Trust Ayyangar J. 11162 Trust Mai Lachmi Sialk~ti Bradri v. Thi (.,11aiTman, Amritsa,. lmprov,ment Trust A.yy;ngar J. 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] Davelopment and Damaged Areas Act, 1951 which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. A few facts are necessary to be stated in order to appreciate how this point arises. The appellant claims to be the trustee of a Public Trust created for the management of certain prop
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.