http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: S. GURDIAL SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:       Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy       Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa Manoj Swarup,Vikas Vashisht,Advs.  for Ms. MinakshiVij, Adv. for the appellants Rohit Aggarwal, Adv. for R.S. Suri, Adv. for the Respondent  O R D E R      The following order of thecourt was delivered:      This appeal by special leave,  arises fromthe judgment of the DivisionBench of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, made  on November  26, 1985 in CWPNo. 2575/85, dismissing the writ petition inlimine.      The admitted  position is that therespondent Trust had published on  September4,    1975  two notification  under section36  and48 of the punjab Town Improvement Act,1922 ( for  short, the  "Act’ ),  which  are equivalent  to the notifications under  Section 4(1)  of the  Land Acquisition Act,   1894 (for  short,  the "Central Act), respectively on 20.10.1972 and19.9.1975, acquiring  atotal  extent of 0.3 acres of  land with  boundaries, statedin the scheme framed under Section  24 readwith  Section  28  (2)of  the Act including the  statement made  therein with a general map of the locality  comprisedin  the declaration  under  Section 41(1) of  the Act  which is  equivalentto  Section 6 of the CentralAct.  An enquiry under Section 11 of the Central Act was conducted  and theaward was made on January 19,  1977. Thereafter, theappellants sought a reference.Accordingly, reference under section 18  came to  be made  to the  civil court .In 1985, the appellants filed writ petition  in the High court  challenging  the notification  issued  and the declaration   under  Section  41  on  the  ground  that the notification and  declaration were   vague  and,  therefore, the acquisition  was bad in law.  The High Court, as stated above, dismissed  the writ  petition in limine,  Hencethis appeal by special leave.      This Court has recently considered the entire case law and held  in State of Tamil Nadu vs. L.N. Krishnan [(1996) 1 SCC 250]  that the  notification cannot be quashed  on the ground of  vagueness. Therein,notification  under  Section 4(1) indicatedthat the  landswere  needed for the housing

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

scheme to  meetthe  demands made  by various sectors of the population under  K.K. Nagar Further  ExtensionScheme.That scheme was  found to  be not  vague and hence could  not be quashedon  thegroundthat it was vague.   This Court has reversed the judgment in State of TamilNadu Vs. A. Mohammed Yousef [(1991)(4) SCC224] wherein itwas held that unless a detailed  scheme is  framed under theimproved scheme, the notification  under section 4(1) is illegal. Itis seenthat the notification  issued in  the present case indicates the existence of  the map  and thedetailed  scheme  for  there inspection of  the persons interested in the scheme.  It was reiterated in  the declaration published under Section6 of the  Central  Act.    A scheme was  also  annexed  to the declaration.   Under   these   circumstances,though the notification   has notdisclosed  thepublicpurpose,  it cannot be said that thescheme itself is vague and is liable to be  quashed.  That apart,  the award was made on January 19,  1977 and the reference under Section 18 also was sought for and was made.   Under  those  circumstances,  thewrit petition was  filed after an inordinatedelay of 8 years and the appellantsaccepted the  award passed  by the court and the relief  sought for.  Accordingly  , we  donot find any illegality in  the ultimate  conclusionreached by theHigh Court  that   it  doesthatit  does  not  even  warrant interference.      Itis  then contended,   relying  upon the decision of this court  in State  of U.P.  vs. Pista  Devi [(1986) 4 SCC 251] that  theappellants  are entitled  to  allotment  of alternative sites  for commercial  purpose.   Therein, the land was  acquired  forhousingdevelopment  and the persons whose properties  were sought  to be displaced were directed to be  provided  housing   accommodation  under the schemes formed thereunder.   The  general ratio therein  cannot  be uniformly and mechanically extended to all the cases  unless there  is    any  express  scheme  framed  by appropriate authorities and the scheme  isin  operation.under  these circumstances, we cannot   give   anyexpressdirection in this behalf.   However, when the grievance was made by the appellants,   an  admission  was    made    inthe  counter affidavit filedin the High Court thus:      "The petitionerscould get a plot      ofland   as localDisplaced Person      inlieu   of  their  acquired  land      according to ruleson the subject."      Inview  of the above statement, it will be open to the appellants to  make anapplication   to the respondents and they would  consider according to the scheme.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed  with  the  above observation.  No  costs.