NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3380 OF 2003

Jabalpur Development Authority …….. Appellant

Versus

V.V. Shrivastava and another …….. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. Whether Town Planning Scheme No. 14 (hereinafter described as `the  

Scheme’) framed by appellant – Jabalpur Development Authority could not  

be implemented in respect of the land of the respondents due to the alleged  

non-compliance of Sections 50 and 56 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha  

Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, `the Act’) is the question which  

arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order dated 17.8.2001 by  

which learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed in

limine the second appeal preferred by the appellant against judgment and  

decree  dated 21.4.1999 passed  by  IX Additional  District  Judge,  Jabalpur  

(hereinafter referred to as, `the lower appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No.  

36-A of  1998  whereby  the  decree  passed  by  15th Civil  Judge  Grade  II,  

Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as, `the trial Court’)  in a suit for declaration  

and injunction was upheld.

2. The appellant is a body corporate constituted under Section 38 of the  

Act.   In May 1980, the appellant decided to prepare the Scheme covering an  

area of 104.25 hectares including the land of the respondents comprised in  

khasra  No.  164/2  for  construction  of  Bus  Terminus,  Major  Road  No.4,  

Housing Scheme and Sites for offices of the State, Central Governments and  

Public Corporations.  As a follow up, notification dated 4.7.1980 was issued  

under Section 50(2) of the Act whereby the appellant declared its intention  

to prepare the Scheme.  The draft  scheme was published in the Madhya  

Pradesh Gazette dated 19.6.1981 issued under Section 50(3) and objections  

and suggestions were invited from the public.  The Scheme was approved by  

the appellant  on 14.9.1982 and notification dated 29.4.1983 (Ex.D1) was  

published under Section 50(7).   

2

3. As a sequel to publication of the Scheme, the appellant issued notice  

dated 26.8.1983 to respondent No.1 and called upon him to submit claim for  

compensation in lieu of acquisition of khasra No.164/2.  Another letter dated  

31.10.1983 was sent to respondent No.1 and he was asked to submit some  

documents  necessary  for  determination  of  the  amount  of  compensation.  

Similar notices were issued to other land owners, majority of whom agreed  

to accept the amount of compensation offered by the appellant.  It is not in  

dispute  that  after  acquiring  the  major  portion  of  the  land  by  agreement  

several multistoried buildings have been constructed and a housing colony  

has also been developed.  

4. Since the respondents did not reply to either of the communications  

sent by the appellant,  the State Government was requested to acquire the  

land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.   

5. After almost 9 years of the publication of notification under Section  

50(7) of the Act, the respondents filed suit for declaration and permanent  

injunction  by  alleging  that  the  predecessor  of  the  defendant  (appellant  

herein), namely, Town Improvement Trust, Jabalpur had made an attempt to  

acquire their land in 1977 by issuing notification under Section 48 of the  

3

Madhya  Pradesh  Town Improvement  Trust  Act,  1960 but  after  filing  of  

objections,  no  further  action  was  taken;  that  the  Scheme  has  not  been  

framed/published in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that there  

was no legal basis or justification to acquire their land and the same will be  

deemed to have lapsed because the land was not acquired within three years  

from the date of publication of notification Ex.D1.   

6. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 17.11.1997 decreed the suit  

primarily on the ground that the defendant (appellant herein) has failed to  

prove  that  the  draft  scheme was published under  Section  50(3)  and was  

approved  under  Section  50(4).   The  trial  Court  took  cognizance  of  

notification – Ex.D1 and observed that even if compliance of various sub-

sections  of  Section 50 is  presumed, the Scheme will  be deemed to  have  

lapsed because the same was not implemented within three years from the  

date of its final publication.

7. The appeal  preferred  by  the  appellant  was  dismissed  by  the  lower  

appellate Court which expressed its agreement with the trial Court that the  

Scheme had not been published as per the mandate of Section 50 and, in any  

case,  the same will  be deemed to  have lapsed because  the land was not  

4

acquired within three years of the publication of notification under Section  

50(7).   

8. The appellant challenged the judgment of the lower appellate Court by  

filing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).  It  

also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for placing on record  

documents marked `A’ to `H’ to show that the Scheme has already been  

implemented.   A  reading  of  the  impugned  order  shows  that  the  learned  

Single  Judge  took  cognizance  of  the  statement  made  by  the  counsel  

appearing on behalf of the appellant that land of the respondents has not  

been acquired in accordance with law and held that the Courts below had  

rightly  restrained  the  appellant  from  interfering  with  their  possession  

without following due process of law.  The learned Single Judge further held  

that  Ex.D1  cannot  be  treated  as  publication  of  final  Scheme as  per  the  

requirement  of  Section 50(7)  of  the Act.   The learned Single Judge also  

observed that the documents produced along with the application filed under  

Order  41  Rule  27  CPC  do  not  prove  publication  of  notifications  under  

Section 50(2) and 50(7) of the Act, which are mandatory in character.

5

9. Along with the special leave petition out of which the present appeal  

arises,  the appellant  filed I.A. No.2/2001 for placing on record copies of  

notification  dated  4.7.1980  (Annexure-P6)  issued  under  Section  50(2),  

notification dated 19.6.1981 (Annexure-P7) by which the draft scheme was  

published under  Section 50(3),  notice  dated  26.8.1983 (Annexure-P8)  by  

which respondent No.1 was asked to submit his claim for compensation and  

letter  dated  31.10.1983  (Annexure-P9)  by  which  he  was  called  upon  to  

submit true copy of sale deed, khasra panchshal duly certified by Tehsildar,  

diversion certificate etc., partition deed and khasra plan of the land.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. In  response  to  the  notice  of  the  special  leave  petition  issued  on  

7.12.2001, the respondents filed detailed counter affidavit dated 17.3.2002  

along with copy of the plaint and statement of DW-1 Kedar Prasad Sharma,  

who was then  working  as  Section In-Charge  in  the  establishment  of  the  

appellant.  The appellant filed rejoinder affidavit dated 10.4.2002 along with  

copy  of  the  written  statement.   An  additional  counter  affidavit  dated  

21.9.2002 was filed by respondent No.1 to which supplementary affidavit  

dated 27.10.2002 was filed on behalf of the appellant.  The respondents then  

6

filed application dated 15.1.2003 for placing on record additional documents  

to which counter affidavit was filed by the appellant on 14.2.2003.  After  

grant of leave, the respondents filed application dated 12.6.2009 for placing  

on  record  copies  of  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  the  appellant  held  on  

10.11.1993 (Annexure-R7),  letter  dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure-R8)  sent by  

Joint Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Jabalpur to the Chief Executive  

Officer of the appellant, letter dated 16.12.2005 (Annexure-R9) sent by the  

Land  Acquisition  Officer  to  Shri  Brij  Bihari  Nagaria,  general  power  of  

attorney holder for Shri  Najuk Jain, Shri  Jambo Jain and Shri Jagat Jain,  

letter  dated  26.12.1994  sent  by  the  State  Government  to  Commissioner,  

Jabalpur Division and Chairman of the appellant and details of the Scheme  

framed under the Act (Annexure-R9).   Lastly, I.A. No. 11/2009 was filed on  

behalf  of  the appellant  for  filing additional  affidavit  of  Shri  G.N. Singh,  

Land Acquisition Collector  along with letter  dated 25.7.2007 sent  by the  

State Government to the Chief Executive Officer of the appellant.

12. We have made a mention of these pleadings and documents to show  

that after the judgment of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court and the  

High  Court,  the  parties  have  exchanged  correspondence  and  apparently  

conflicting  communications  have  been issued  by the  functionaries  of  the  

7

Government and the appellant.   However,  it  is  not  necessary to consider  

additional pleadings and documents because we are convicted that the High  

Court committed an error by not entertaining the application filed by the  

appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for producing additional evidence to  

show that the possession of the major portion of the land covered by the  

Scheme was taken after paying compensation to the land owners and the  

Scheme has been implemented.

13. We are also of the view that the Courts below have gravely erred in  

holding that Ex.D1 dated 29.4.1983 is a notification issued under Section  

50(4) and the final  Scheme was not  published as per  the requirement  of  

Section 50(7).  A perusal of Ex.D1, copy of which has been placed on the  

record of this appeal as Annexure-P2 shows that this is the notification by  

which the  final  scheme was published in  Madhya Pradesh Gazette  dated  

29.4.1983.  Reference to Section 50(4) has been made in this notification to  

signify that the Scheme was approved by the appellant.  All the Courts have  

misinterpreted this notification as a notification issued under Section 50(4).  

That  apart,  a  conjoint  reading of  the  notifications  –  Annexures-P6 dated  

4.7.1980, P7 dated 19.6.1981 and P2 dated 29.4.1983 makes it clear that the  

8

Scheme was finalized  after  complying with  the  mandate  of  various  sub-

sections of Section 50 of the Act.

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order is set aside  

and the  matter  is  remitted  to  the  High Court  with  the  direction  that  the  

second  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant  be  decided  afresh  after  giving  

opportunity of hearing to the parties.  The  parties  may,  if  so  advised,  file  

applications  under  Order  41  Rule  27  CPC  for  permission  to  adduce  

additional evidence.  The High Court shall first dispose of the application  

already  filed  by  the  appellant  along  with  the  second  appeal  and  the  

applications which may be filed hereafter by either party.  Thereafter, the  

High Court shall frame substantial questions of law as per the mandate of  

Section 100 CPC and decide the appeal with reference to those questions of  

law.

….………………….…J. [G.S. Singhvi]

…..…..………………..J. [Asok Kumar Ganguly]

New Delhi, October 19, 2010.

9