1991 (9) TMI 350 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include the challenge to the Notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, based on the contention that it was not issued within the stipulated period of three years from the first publication of the Notice under Section 36. The appeal is against the judgment of the Division Bench dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal.

Judgment Details:
The appellant, Bhatinda Improvement Trust, framed a development scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. Notices under Section 36 of the Act were published in the Daily Tribune and local daily Ajit, along with the Punjab Government Gazette. A Notification under Section 42 sanctioning the scheme was issued on June 30, 1980. The respondents challenged these in the High Court, contending that the Notification under Section 42 was issued beyond the prescribed three-year period, rendering it invalid.

The appellant argued that the time limit of three years was not prescribed under the Act and that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were incorporated into the said Act from its enactment in 1922, making subsequent amendments inapplicable. The relevant sections of the Act and Land Acquisition Act were examined to determine the applicability of the time limit.

The Court rejected the appellant's submissions, emphasizing that the Land Acquisition Act provisions were not incorporated into the said Act. It was clarified that the Land Acquisition Act governed land acquisition for the scheme, with only certain provisions being given effect as amended by the said Act. As the Notification under Section 42 was issued beyond the stipulated three-year period, the acquisition proceedings were deemed lapsed and invalid.

The Court referenced legal principles regarding the incorporation of statutes by reference and held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act had to be applied as they stood at the relevant time. Since the Notification under Section 42 was published after the deadline, it was deemed invalid, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

In conclusion, the appeal challenging the validity of the Notification under Section 42 was dismissed, affirming the decision that the Notification was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering it invalid and causing the acquisition proceedings to lapse.