UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN versus RAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 14-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UJJAIN VIKAS PRADHIKARAN 
V. 
RAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 14, 1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., KULDIP SINGH 
ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4(1)-Notification 
under-Acquisition of lands for scheme No.23 framed under Madhya Pradesh 
Nagar'Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam---Non-compliance of statutory re-
quirements for completing Scheme-No ma/a fides-Effect of C 
notification-Directions of Supreme Court under the Circumstances. 
A notification u/s.4(1) of the La11,d Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
issued for acquisiti.on of the questicfoed lands along with some other 
lands for the purpose of development of the town. On 17:9.80 the 
same was quashed. 
D 
In 1985 another similar notification was issued u/s 4(1) of the 
Act, for acquisition of the same lands for the Scheme No.23 framed 
under Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. 
The respondents challenged the notification before the High 
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
The High Court allowed the writ petitions annulling the notifi-
cation and holding that the Scheme No.23 did not operate against 
certain specified lands of the respondents. It also found that the 
statutory requirements for completing the scheme were not com-
plied with and therefore, no action for acquisition under the Scheme 
could be taken. 
These appeals were filed by the Development Authority again$l 
the High Court judgments by special leave. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The pre-conditions had not been complied with strictly 
under the statutory provisions. The High Court has not found any 
ma/a fides. The Development Authority in question consisted oJ;, only 
one person. His own order was perhaps taken by him and the gov-
247 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
ernmental authorities as the requisite resolution. The respondents 
did not take the ground that there was no valid authority behind the 
scheme. [249 E-FJ 
• 
2. The huge patch of land has been substantially improved 
upon under the scheme. Cancellation d the notification does not 
bring the matter to an end. Obviously, fresh proceedings would be 
taken after complying with the defect if the judgment of the High 
Court is allowed to stand. If the acquisition is not made .the re-
spondents should enjoy usual benefits of their land on account of 
the development of the neighbouring area and if the re-acquisition 
is not made there would be claim for higher compensation. [249 G-
250 A] 
3. It is directed that the acquisition remain to subject, to the 
condition that the notification under section 4(1) of the Act issued in 
1985 shall be deemed to be one dated 1.1.88 and the market value of 
the land for the acquisition shall be determine'tt with reference to 
that date, and that as the" deemed date of the notification under 
section 4(1) to be postponed by almost three years and during this 
period since the appellant has brought about the bulk of the im-
provements in the neighbourhood, 25 per cent of the potential value 
of the land relatable to the improvements made by the appellant 
would only be available to the respondents, but in fixing market 
E. value all other legitimate considerations shall be taken into account. 
There is no intention to extend the benefit under section 28 of the 
Act to the owners of the lands already acquired under the notifica-
tion of 1980 or 1985 on the basis of court's direction that the re-
spondents' lands shall be deemed to have been notified under sec-
tion 4(1) of the Act on 1.1.1988. [250 B-D] 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.4554 to 
4556of1991. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.91 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Misc. Petition Nos. 1707, 1746 and 179z of 1986. 
D.D. Thakur, C.S.Chazed, V.Gambhir, Surinder Kamail, S.K.Gambhir 
and N.N.Bhatt for the Appellants. 
K.K.Venugopal, P.P.Rao, G.L.Sanghi, K.K.Sharma, Ashok K.Mahajan, 
L.R.Siilgh, D.Mehta, A.Vachher, R.N.Mittal and S.K.Mehta for the Re-
spondents. 
, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . 
( 
( , .. 
I 
I 
~. 
VIK.AS PRADHIKARAN v. RAJ JOHRI [MISRA, CJ.] 
249 
RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. Special leave granted. 
Ujjain Development Authority is in appeal challenging the judgment 
. of the Madhya Predesh High Court, Indore Bench, rendered in an applica-
tion under Article 226 of the Constitution annulling the notification issued 
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinaf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.