http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SITA RAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment dated September  9,  1993  of  the  Division  Bench  of  the Rajasthan High Court made in C.W.P. No. 1124/84 and batch.      Notification under  Section 52  of the  Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act,  1959 was  published on  October  8,  1979. Thereafter, the Jaipur Development Authority took a decision after the  Jaipur Development  authority Act  had come  into force to  continue   the acquisition under the repealed Act. Consequently, fresh  notification was  issued on  April  20, 1984. The  same came to be challenged in the Writ Petitions. The Division  Bench of  the High  Court has held that unless the scheme  under the  Jaipur Development  Authority Act has been properly  framed, notification  issued is  not valid in law. This question was considered by this Court in Pratap v. State of  Rajasthan [(1996)  3 SCC  1]. In fact the decision under appeal  was expressly  held not a good law. This Court had held thus:      "14. 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  case 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   1994  (the  present      appeal) 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  1.11.1995 in  Urban      Improvement  Trust   v.  State   of      Rajasthan and  the other  connected      cases. In  this  judgment,  dealing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    with Narain  case  the  Full  Bench      observed as follows:      The Division Bench of this Court in      the  case   Narain  v.   State   of      Rajasthan,  has   held   that   the      acquisition proceedings  cannot  be      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.  case   to   the   facts   and      circumstances of  the  case  before      the Division  Bench.  Consideration      of para  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  as regards the      decision of  the Supreme  Court  in      the  case  of  Gandhi  Grah  Nirman      Sahkari Samiti Ltd.      It is  indeed unfortunate  that the      judgment of  the Division  Bench in      Narain case was relied on, when the      same had been overruled by the Full      Bench   of   that   Court   without      referring   to   the   Full   Bench      decision.   Furthermore   even   on      merits  we   find  that   the  said      decision of  the Division  Bench of      the Rajasthan  High Court in Narain      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 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 v. A.      Mohd. Yousef [(1991) 4 SCC 224]."      Even the  decision in  State of  Tamil  Nadu  v.  Mohd. Yousef [(1991)  4 SCC  224] has  been over-ruled  by a later decision of  three-Judge Bench  of this  Court in  State  of Tamil Nadu  & Ors. v. L. Krishnan & Ors. [(1996) 1 SCC 250]. Therefore, the  view of  the High  Court that  framing of  a

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

scheme is  a pre-condition  for acquisition of land is not a correct proposition of law. The notification for acquisition cannot be  quashed on that account.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed. The  judgment of the High  Court stands   set  aside. Consequently,  the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.