YOGENDRA PAL AND OTHERS versus MUNICIPALITY, BHATINDA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 15-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

YOGENDRA PAL AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
MUNICIPALITY, BHATINDA AND ANR. 
JULY 15, 1994 
(P.B. SAWANT AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
Municipalitie>-Punjab Municipal Act, 19 ll-Section 192( J)(cr 
Ha1yana Municipal Act, 1973-Section 203(l)(Crconstitutiona/ity of-Con-
stinition of India, 1951>-Arts. 14, 31 (2), 366( JO), 372 read with Art. 19 (i)(j) 
&Art. 31. 
-
C 
Municipalities--Punjab Municipal Act, J9ll-Sections 192(J)(C) and 
161}-Scope of-Conrrast of the provisions--'Transfer' euphemism for acquisi-
tion-No provision for paymelll of compe11satio11 if upto 25% of holding 
transferred-Compensation if holding over 25%, but llpto 35% trans-
ferred-No guidelines for amoulll or the time of compensation. 
D. 
Co11stillltion of India, 195!>-Art. 19( J)(f) and Art. 31(2)-Effect of Art. 
31(5rSaving of "existi11g /aw"--lmpugned provisions as "existing 
Law"-Cltal/enge fails. 
Co11stitution of l11dia, 1951>-Arts. 136 & 32--Court's power to mould E 
relief 
In 1969, the State Government of Punjab declared an area as "un-
built" under Sec. 3(18)(b) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Later a part of 
that land belonging to the writ petitioner was transferred to the Municipal 
Committee for a Town Planning scheme u/s 192(1)(c) without payment of F 
compensation. The said statutes which gave the Municipal Committee 
power of acquisition only provided that the total land transferred could not 
exc~ed 35% of the landowner's holding and the land transferred without 
payment could not exceed 25% of the landowner's land. The writ petition 
which challenged the provision was dismissed on account of laches and a G 
precedent. 
In this court, the petitioner questioned the validity of the transfer of 
land without payment of compensation and the constitutionality of Sec. 
192(l)(c) and similarly other petitioners challenged validity of Sec. 
203(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act. 
H 
693 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant contended that compulsory transfer to the Committee 
for the To"n Planniog Scheme "ithout pa)ment of compensation was ultra 
i·ircs Art. 19(1)(1) r/w Art. 31 and the Committee's unbridled discretion in 
transferring land of some and not touching land of others violated Art. 14 
of the Constitution, 
B 
The respondent's position was that the law being 'existing law' was 
saved by Art. 31(5). Also, the transfer which was effected for framing of the 
Town Planning Scheme did not divest the ownership or possessory rights 
of the land owner and that as the market value of the remaining land of the 
landowner increased with the development they were not entitled to any 
C 
additional compensation. 
Dismissing the appeals and the writ petition, this Court 
HELD : I.I. The Municipal Committee had been given authority to 
transfer the land.from the land-owner to itself, either by paying compensa-
D lion or without, depending upon its discretion. No guidelif!es had been 
provided as to when compensation was or was not to be paid to the land-
owner. If the land transferred from the landowner was less than 25% of his 
holding, no obligation had been placed to pay any compensation. Further, 
the Municipal Committee had been given discretion to pay compensation 
without laying down the principles therefore, if the land acquired was above 
E 25% of the,landowner's holding. Thus, the provisions of section 192(1)(c) 
of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and section 203(1)(c) of the Haryana 
Municipal Act 1973 were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and void 
with effect from the date of the judgment. [703-B, D-E; 707-G] 
F 
1.2. The expression "for public purposes including use as public 
streets by owners of land" did not mean that the land would be transferred 
to the Municipal Committee only for such public purpose which could be 
made use of by owners of the land from whom the land was transferred. 
Utility to members of public in general was envisaged. If the transferor 
landowne,rs also benefited by such purpose as a member of the public it 
G made no difference to the position in law that he was not the exclusive 
beneficiary of such purpose. [704-A-C-D] 
1.3. There is no provision in the Act to suggest that inspite of the land 
being used for public purpose, the possession, ownership or occupation of 
the trnnsferred land remaiued with the landowner and that he could deal 
H with or dispose of the same as desired. It was obvious that the use of the 
.... 
YOGENDRAv. MUNICIPALITY 
695 
word 'transferred' was a

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