http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: PRATAP AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF RAJASTHANAND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/02/1996

BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1296            1996 SCC  (3)   1  JT 1996 (2)   759        1996 SCALE  (2)543

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                           W I T H               CIVIL APPEAL NOS.626-28 OF 1993 Chanda and Ors. V. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.                           W I T H                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3851 OF 1996                -----------------------------        (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15971 of 1995) Sheo Narain and Anr. V. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.                       J U D G M E N T Kirpal, J.      In these  appeals the  challenge is  to the decision of the Rajasthan  High Court  who had upheld the acquisition of land of  the appellants  which  had  been  acquired  by  the respondents under  the provisions  of  the  Rajasthan  Urban Improvement Act,  1959 (hereinafter referred to as ’the said Act’).      The  proceedings   for  acquisition   of  land  of  the appellants commenced  with the  State of  Rajasthan  issuing notification dated  10th October, 1979, under Section 52 (2) of the  said Act proposing to acquire the land, described in the  said   notification,  which  was  situated  in  various villages in  and around the city of Jaipur. The notification stated that  it was  necessary to acquire the land mentioned therein for  improvement of land of Sector 1A of Jaipur City for the  purposes of  multipurpose schemes,  i e.,  for  the construction  of   buildings  residential,   commercial  and industrial units. By this notification information was given to all  the concerned  owners and  persons interested in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

land which was sought to be acquired to file any objections, which they had, against the proposed acquisition. In respect of the  land of the appellants notification under Section 52 (1) of  the said  Act was issued on 20th April, 1984. It was stated  therein   that  the   land  mentioned  in  the  said notification  was   needed  under   the  said  Act  for  the improvement of  urban areas and this notification was issued after considering  those objections  which had been filed by the interested  persons. It  was also  notified that  on the date  of   publication  of  the  said  notification  in  the Rajasthan Rajpatra  "the said  land shall  be vested  in the State Government  free from  all encumbrances". Though, this notification was  dated  7th  March,  1984,  the  same  was, however, published  in the  Rajasthan Rajptra on 20th April, 1984.      The Land  Acquisition Act,  1894, was  extended to  the State of  Rajasthan on  24th September,  1984. Some  of  the persons whose  lands were  acquired filed  suits challenging the acquisition  proceedings under  Section 52  of the  said Act.  According  to  the  appellants  the  said  suits  were dismissed on  2nd September,  1986. Awards  were  passed  on different dates.  In the  present appeals  the  awards  were passed on 30th September, 1988, 30th November, 1988 and 28th June, 1989.      A number  of writ  petitions were  then  filed  in  the Rajasthan High  Court. Vide  a common  judgment  dated  21st October, 1992,  a Single  Judge of  the Rajasthan High Court dismissed 24  writ petitions  and upheld  the acquisition of the land which had been made. Appeals were filed against the said judgment  and a  Division Bench  of the  Rajasthan High Court dismissed  the same  on  17th  December,  1992.  Civil Appeal nos.624-25 and 626-28 of 1993 challenge the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.      Another set  of appeals  against the  judgment  of  the Single Judge  of the  Rajasthan High Court were dismissed by the Division  Bench vide  judgment dated  12th May, 1994, by following its  earlier  decision  of  17th  December,  1992. Special Leave  Petition (Civil)  No.15971 of  1995 is  filed against this judgment.      The main  contention which  has been urged on behalf of the appellants  is that  no award  had been  made within two years of  the notification  issued under  Section 52  of the said Act.  It was  contended that  with the Land Acquisition Act  1894   having  been   extended,  the   Rajasthan  Urban Improvement Act,  1959 ceased  to  have  any  operation  and thereafter acquisition proceedings were required to be taken under the  relevant provisions  of the  Central Act. Section 11-A of  the Land  Acquisition Act  1894 requires  that  the awards should be made within two years of the publication of Section 6  notification and,  it was  submitted, that in the instant cases the awards were made beyond the said period of two years  and without  complying  with  the  provisions  of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.      It was  also submitted  by Mr. A.K. Sen, learned senior counsel for  the appellants  that another  Division Bench of the Rajasthan  High Court in the case of Narain and Ors. Vs. State of  Rajasthan ( 1993 [2] Western Law Cases (Rajasthan) 738 )  had quashed  the notification  of 10th October, 1979, issued Under  Section 52  (2) of the said Act as well as the notification dated 7th March, 1984,  issued under Section 52 (i) of  the said  Act.  The  submission  was  that  as  this judgment has not so far been reversed, therefore, this Court must  hold  that  the  acquisition  allegedly  made  by  the respondents could no longer be sustained.      Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

contains provision  for compulsory  acquisition of  the land and the same reads as under:      "Compulsory acquisition  of land  -      (1) Where  on  representation  from      the Trust [or otherwise] it appears      to the  State Government  that  any      land is required for the purpose of      improvement  or   for  any    other      purpose under  this Act,  the State      Government may acquire such land by      publishing in  the official Gazette      a notice  specifying the particular      purpose  for  which  such  land  is      required and stating that the State      Government has  decided to  acquire      the  land   in  pursuance  of  this      section.      (2)  Before   publishing  a  notice      under sub-section  (1),  the  State      Government shall  by another notice      call upon the owner of the land and      any other person who in the opinion      of  the  State  Government  may  be      interested therein  to show  cause,      within  such   time   as   may   be      specified in  the notice,  why  the      land should not be acquired.      [Such notice  shall be individually      served upon  the owner  of the land      and any  other person  who  in  the      opinion of the State Government may      be  interested  therein.  It  shall      also be  published in  the Official      Gazette at least 30 days in advance      and  shall   be  pasted   on   some      conspicuous place  in the locality,      where the  land to  be acquired  is      situate.   Such   publication   and      pasting of  notice shall  be deemed      as sufficient and proper service of      notice upon  the owner  of the land      and upon  all other persons who may      be interested therein.]      (3) Within  the time  specified  in      the notice,  the owner  of the land      or  any   other  person  interested      therein may  show  cause  and  make      objections, why the land should not      be acquired.  Every such  objection      to  the   notice  given  under  sub      section  (2)   shall  be   made  in      writing to  the Officer  on Special      Duty,   or    any   other   officer      appointed by  the State  Government      for the purpose. Such officer shall      give the objector an opportunity of      being heard, either in person or by      pleader, and after hearing all such      objections and  after  making  such      enquiry,  as  he  deems  necessary,      shall  submit   the  case  for  the      decision of  the  State  Government      together with  the  record  of  the      proceedings  held   by  him  and  a      report        containing        his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

    recommendations on  the objections.      Thereafter,  the  State  Government      may pass  such orders  as it  deems      fit .  The decision  of  the  State      Government thereon shall be final.      (4) When a notice under sub-section      (1) is  published in  the  Official      Gazette, the  land  shall,  on  and      from the  date of such publication,      vest  absolutely   in   the   State      Government    free     from     all      encumbrances.      (5) Where any land is vested in the      State Government  under sub-section      (4), the  State Government  may, by      notice in writing, order any person      who may  be in  possession  of  the      land  to   surrender   or   deliver      possession  thereof  to  the  State      Government  or   any  person   duly      authorized by  it  in  this  behalf      within thirty  days of  the service      of the notice.      (6) If  any person refuses or fails      to comply  with an order made under      sub-section    (5),    the    State      Government may  take possession  of      the land  and may  for that purpose      use such force as may be necessary.      (7)  After   the  land   has   been      acquired and  its possession  taken      the  State   Government  shall,  on      payment   of    the    amount    of      compensation  as  determined  under      section 53,  the amount of interest      thereon and  of all  other  charges      incurred by the State Government in      this connection, transfer it to the      Trust  or   any  other   prescribed      authority  or  Department  for  the      purpose for which it is acquired.           Provided that such Transfer of      the land  may be  made to the trust      or   to    any   other   prescribed      authority or  the Department of the      Government without  recovering  any      amount,      (i) where  the State  Government is      satisfied that  any  such  land  is      urgently  needed   by  the   Trust,      prescribed authority  or Department      of the  Government for carrying out      improvement    under     the    Act      immediately, or      (ii)  where   any  such   land   is      intended to  be  allotted  free  of      charge  to  the  Scheduled  Castes,      Scheduled  Tribes   or  to   person      entitled under  section 31  of  the      Rajasthan   Tenancy    Act,    1955      [Rajasthasn  Act   3  of  1955]  to      possess a  site for  a  residential      house in  the abadi  of  the  Urban      area free of charge.]      (8) Any  notice issued or published

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

    by the  State Government under this      section  may   also  be  issued  or      published for  and on  behalf of it      by any officer subordinate to it so      authorized."      After the  extension cf  the Land Acquisition Act 1894, to the  State of  Rajasthan, the  existing  Rajasthan  Urban Improvement Act,  1959 stood repealed. The State legislature then reasssed  the Rajasthan  urban Improvement (Amendment)) Act, 1987  (hereinafter referred  to as ’the Amending Act’)˜ with a view to amend the provisions of the Principal Act and to provide  for certain  transitory and Facial procedure nor the disposal  of pending  and present proceedings as well as payment of  compensation, interest  etc.  The  Amending  Act incorporated a  new provision,  namely, Section  60 A in the Principal Act.  This Section  60 A  provided for transistory provisions for  pending matters  relating to  acquisitor, of land. Sub-section (3) of this section relating to the period within which the award could be made was as follows:      "(3) Where  in a  matter pending on      the date  of commencement, a notice      under subsection  (2) of section 52      or a  notice under  sub-section (1)      thereof has  been served or, as the      case may be, published, such notice      shall  has   deemed   to   be   the      notification     or     declaration      published or made under sub-section      (1) of  section 4  or, as  the case      may be,  under sub-section  (1)  of      section; 6  of the Land Acquisition      Act and the declaration or award in      such a  matter shall be made within      a period  of one  year or,  as  the      case may  be, two  years  from  the      date of commencement." The provisions  of this  Amending Act  were held to be ultra vires by  a decision of the Rajasthan High Court inasmuch as the said  Act did  not have  the assent  of  the  President. Thereupon, the  Rajasthan urban  Improvement (Amendment  and Validation) Act,  1990  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’the Validating Act)  was passed which received the assent of the President on  24th March,  1995.  A  new  Section  60-A  was inserted in  the Principal  Act which contained a transitory provision and which reads as follows:      "60-A  Transitory   provisions  for      pending   matters    relating    to      acquisition of land notwithstanding      anything  otherwise   contained  in      sub-section  (1)   of  Section  52,      where in any matter relating to the      acquisition of  land pending on the      date   of   commencement   of   the      Rajasthan     Urban     Improvement      (Amendment) Act,  1987 (hereinafter      in this  section referred to as the      date of  commencement), an  action,      thing  or  order  had  been  taken,      done,  or   made   under   and   in      accordance with  the provisions  of      this Act  as it  stood  before  the      date of  commencement such  action,      thing, or  order shall  not be  re-      opened or  reviewed or be liable to      be challenged  on the  ground  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

    such action,  thing or order was at      variance with  that provided in the      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central      Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter in this      section referred  to  as  the  Land      Acquisition  Act)  subject  however      that any further proceedings action      or order  in such matter conducted,      taken or  made on or after the date      of commencement  shall  subject  to      the  other   provisions   of   this      section,  be   made  under  and  in      accordance    with     the     Land      Acquisition Act.      (2) The  amount of  compensation or      interest or  that payable  for  any      other reasons  shall  in  a  matter      pending on the date of commencement      by payable  under and in accordance      with the  provisions  of  the  Land      Acquisition Act  and the money paid      prior to  the date  of commencement      shall be  deduced from  or adjusted      against the said amount.      (3) Where  in a  matter pending  on      the date  of commencement, a notice      under sub-section (2) of Section 52      or a  notice under  sub-section (1)      thereof has  been served  or as the      case may  be published  such notice      shall   be   deemed   to   be   the      notification     or     declaration      published or made under sub-section      (1) of  Section 4,  or as  the case      may be,  under sub-section  (1)  of      Section 6  of the  Land Acquisition      Act and the declaration or award in      such a  matter shall be made within      a period  of one  year or,  as  the      case may  be, two  years  from  the      date of commencement.      (4) Where  any land  has, prior  to      the date of commencement, vested in      the   State   Government   or   its      possession  has   been   taken   in      accordance with  the provisions  of      this Act  as it  stood  before  the      date of  commencement, such vesting      or possession  of land shall not be      liable  to  be  challenged  on  the      ground   that    no    amount    of      compensation was  tendered and paid      in accordance with sub-section (3A)      of   Section   17   of   the   Land      Acquisition Act  subject,  however,      that such  amount shall be tendered      and paid  within a  period  of  six      months    from    the    date    of      commencement.      (5) In  determining the  amount  of      compensation to  be  awarded  in  a      matter  pending   on  the  date  of      commencement, the  market value  of      the land  at the  date on which the      notice   was   published   in   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    official gazette  under clause  (b)      of subsection  (6) of Section 52 as      it  stood   before  the   date   of      commencement shall  be  taken  into      consideration.      (6) An  appeal filed  under Section      54  or  Section  56  or  a  dispute      referred  under   Section   55   or      Section 59  and pending on the date      of commencement  shall  be  decided      having regard  to the provisions of      the Land Acquisition Act."      The provisions  of Section  52 (2)  of the said Act are akin to  Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to this section  before publishing  a notice  under sub-section (1), a  notice is  issued to  the owners  of land  and other persons, who  are interested,  to show  cause why  the State Government should not acquire the land. Due publicity of the issuance of  the said  notice is required to be given, apart from individual  service of the said notice. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 enables the owners or the person interested to show  cause   and  file   objections  against  the  proposed acquisition of  the land.  These objections  are  to  be  in writing and  an opportunity  of being  heard, in  person  or through pleader,  has to  be  afforded  by  the  Officer  on Special  Duty  to  the  objectors.  Thereupon  a  report  is required to  be given to the State Government containing the recommendations on  the objections  which are  filed. It  is evident that  the enquiry  envisaged by  sub-section (3)  of Section 52  is similar  to the  one under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894.  It is after complying with the provisions of  sub-sections  (2)  and  (3)  that  the  State Government can issue a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 52  acquiring the land specified in the notification for the  purpose of  improvement or  for any  other  purpose under the Act. On the said notification under Section 52 (1) being issued,  sub-section (4)  of Section  52 provides that with the  publication of the notice in the Official Gazette, the land shall on and from the date of the publication "vest absolutely  in   the  State   Government   free   from   all encumbrances". Once the land has so vested, possession is to be taken  by the  State Government  and after  the amount of compensation is  determined according  to  Section  52,  the payment of  the same  is to be made and the land can then be transferred to the Improvement Trust.      From the  facts narrated  hereinabove it  is clear that the Central  Act was extended to the State of Rajasthan only after  the   land  in  question  had  vested  in  the  State Government with  the publication  of the  notification under Section 52  (l) on  10th October,  1984. Once the vesting of the  land   in  the   State  Government,   free   from   all encumbrances, was  completed the subsequent extension of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the State of Rajasthan and the amendments made  by the Amending Acts to the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust  Act becomes  wholly irrelevant  and of no consequence. Neither the amendments nor the extension of the Central Act  can have  the effect,  in law  or otherwise, of divesting the  State of  ownership of  the  land  which  had already been vested in it.      The provisions  of sub-section  (4) of  Section 52  are somewhat similar  to Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Just as publication of a notification under Section 52 (1) vests the land in the State, free from all encumbrances, as provided  by Section 52 (4), similarly when possession of land is taken under Section 17 (1) the land vests absolutely

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

in the  Government free  from all  encumbrances. A  question arose before  this Court  that if  there is a non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5- A and an award is not made in respect  to the  land so  acquired, would the acquisition proceedings lapse.  In Satendra  Prasad Jain  and  Ors.  Vs. State of  U.P. and  Ors. [ (1993) 4 SCC 369] this Court held that once possession had been taken under Section 17 (1) and the land  vested in the Government then the Government could not withdraw  from acquisition  under  Section  48  and  the provisions  of   Section  11-  A  were  not  attracted  and, therefore, the  acquisition proceedings  would not  lapse on failure to  make  an  award  within  the  period  prescribed therein. It  was further held that non-compliance of Section 17 (3-A),  regarding part  payment  of  compensation  before taking possession,  would also  not  render  the  possession illegal  and   entitle  the   Government  to  withdraw  from acquisition. The  aforesaid principle has been reiterated by this Court  in P.  Chinnanna and  Ors. Vs. State of A.P. and Ors. [ (1994) 5 SCC 486] and Awadh Bihari Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of  Bihar and Ors. [ (1995) 6 SCC 31 ]. In view of the aforesaid ratio  it follows  that the  provisions of Section 11A are  not attracted in the present case and even if it be assumed that  the award  has  not  been  passed  within  the stipulated period,  the acquisition of land does not come to an end.      It  was  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondents that  the State  had complied with all the legal requirements in the present case. Our attention was drawn to Section 60-A  of the Amending Act and the Validating Act and it was submitted, and in our opinion rightly, that subsection (3)  of the  Amending Act  and sub-section (4) of the Validating Act only required the making of the award and payment of  money within  the period stipulated therein. The facts narrated  hereinabove show  that this was done. In any case noncompliance  with the  provisions of  this subsection will not in any way affect the vesting of the land which has already taken place with the publication of the notification dated 20th April, 1984. The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 60-A  of the Validating Act are analogous to Section 17-A of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  and  as  held  in  the aforesaid decisions  of this  Court non-compliance  with the said provisions  will not in any way amount to the devesting of acquisition  which has  taken place  or  the  acquisition proceedings having lapsing.      There is also no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the decision of the Division Bench of  the Rajasthan  High  Court  rendered  in  1993  in Narain’s case  (supra) can  in any  way affect  the  present proceedings. Firstly,  the said  decision  of  the  Division Bench of  the Rajasthan  High Court is not final because the Special Leave  Petition (c) Nos. 3100-3127 of 199a have been filed and  the same are pending in this Court; secondly this decision has  not been  approved by  a  Full  Bench  of  the Rajasthan High  Court in  its judgment  dated 1st  November, 1995 in  D.B. Civil  Special Appeal  No.255 of  1995 - Urban Improvement Trust,  Jodhpur Vs.  The State  of Rajasthan and Ors. and  the  other  connected  cases.  In  this  judgment, dealing with  Narain’s  case  the  Full  Bench  observed  as follows:      " The  Division Bench of this Court      in the  case Narain  Vs.  State  of      Raj. &  Ors. reported  in 1993  (2)      WLN  527,   has   held   that   the      acquisition proceedings  cannot  be      taken in  the absence of sanctioned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

    notified scheme. This view has been      taken in  the absence of sanctioned      notified scheme. This view has been      taken by  interpreting only  para 9      of the  Supreme Court  decision  of      Gandhi Grah  Nirman Sahkari  Samiti      Ltd.’s  case   to  the   facts  and      circumstances of  the  case  before      the Division  Bench.  Consideration      of paras  8 and  11 of  the Supreme      Court decision  does not find place      in the  decision  of  the  Division      Bench.   As   stated   above,   the      combined. effect  of paras 8, 9 and      11 of  the Supreme  Court  decision      seems to  be otherwise. With utmost      respect, it  is difficult  to agree      with the observations made and view      expressed by  the Division Bench in      the  case   of  Narain  (Supra)  as      regards the decision of the Supreme      Court in  the case  of Gandhi  Grah      Nirman    Sahkari    Samiti    Ltd.      (supra)." It is  indeed unfortunate  that the judgment of the Division Bench in Narain’s case was relied on, when the same had been over-ruled by the Full Bench of that Court without referring to the  Full Bench  decision, Further-more even on merits we find that  the said  decision of  the Division  Bench of the Rajasthan High  Court in Narain’s case does not lay down the correct law  and the  later decision  of the  Full Bench  is correctly decided.  The contention  which was  raised before the High  Court, and it succeeded, in Narain’s case was that there could  be no  proceedings for acquisition which do not conform with  the provisions  of the Master Plan inasmuch as the Master  Plan shows  one particular  use for  the land in question the said land could not be acquired for a different purpose. It  was further contended that without framing of a scheme land  could not  be acquired  under Section 52 of the said Act. In upholding this contention the High Court placed reliance on  the Two  Judge Bench  decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. A. Mohammed Yousef and Ors. [ (1991) 4 SCC 224 ].      Decision of  this Court  in Gandhi  Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.  and Ors.  Vs. State  of Rajasthan  and  Ors.  [ (1993) 2  SCC 662  ]  also  considered  a  similar  question pertaining to  the Rajasthan  Urban  Improvement  Act,  1959 itself. It  had  been  contended  that  land  could  not  be acquired under  Section 52 of the Act unless and until there was a  scheme for  improvement of  the urban  area under the Rajasthan  Urban   Improvement  Act,  1959.  Rejecting  this contention this Court observed as follows:-      "The crux  of the  argument is that      the improvement  in the  urban area      can  only   be   carried   out   by      executing the  schemes framed under      the Act  and in no other way. We do      not agree  with Mr. Shanti Bhushan.      Under the  scheme of  the  Act  the      improvement of  the urban  area can      be undertaken by the Trust and also      by any  of the  departments of  the      Government.  The   framing  of  the      scheme becomes  mandatory only when      the  work   is  undertaken  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    Trust. The State Government, in any      of its  departments, may  decide to      develop the  urban area  under  the      Act and  in that  case it would not      be necessary  for the Government to      have a  scheme framed under Chapter      V of  the Act.  The  power  of  the      State Government  to  acquire  land      under the  Act has been designed to      meet the  scheme of  the Act. Under      Section 52  of the Act the land can      be acquired by the State Government      at the  instance of the Trust, or a      department of the Government or any      prescribed  authority.   The  plain      language of  Section 52  (1) of the      Act negates  the contention  raised      by Mr.  Shanti Bhushan.  Where on a      representation from  the  Trust  or      otherwise it  appears to  the State      Government   that   any   land   is      required   for   the   purpose   of      improvement  or   for   any   other      purpose  under   the  Act   it  can      acquire  such  land  by  issuing  a      notification under  Section 52  (1)      of the Act. It is, thus, clear that      the State  Government has the power      to  acquire  land  either  for  the      execution of  the schemes framed by      the Trust  under Chapter  V of  the      Act or for any other public purpose      under the  Act.  No  fault  can  be      found with  the procedure  followed      by the  State  Government  in  this      Case. The  notification  issued  by      the  State  Government  under  sub-      section (1)  of Section  52 of  the      Act specifically  states  that  the      land was  being  acquired  for  the      construction    of     residential,      commercial    and    administrative      buildings. The  Government - having      taken a  policy decision to acquire      land for  the public  purpose - was      justified    in     issuing     the      notification under  Section 52  (1)      of the  Act in  respect of the land      in dispute."      The effect  of this  is that even if there is no scheme prepared or  finalized,  under  a  Housing  Board  or  Urban Improvement Act, acquisition could be validly made under the provisions of  the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose or under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act for the purpose of improvement  or for  any other purpose under the Act. The decision relating  to the  Rajasthan Act  is directly on the point. The other decision under the Tamil Nadu Act does not, therefore, require any further discussion.      For the  aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed with costs. Civil Appeal No. 3851 of 1996 ----------------------------- (@ SLP (C) No. 15971/95)      Leave granted. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11