1972 (2) TMI 100 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the Improvement Trust's order including appellants' land in the development scheme.
2. Alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Requirement for the Improvement Trust to provide reasons for its decisions.
4. Applicability and interpretation of Section 56 of the Punjab Towns Improvement Act, 1922.
5. Alleged policy decision by the State Government to exempt fully developed orchards.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Improvement Trust's Order:

The appellants challenged the legality of the Improvement Trust's order dated May 1970, which included their land in the development scheme. The scheme was framed under Section 24 read with Section 28(2) of the Punjab Towns Improvement Act, 1922, and covered approximately 128 acres. The scheme was sanctioned by the Governor of Punjab on September 17, 1963, and notified under Section 42(1) of the Act. The appellants' land was included in the scheme, and they sought its exemption on the ground of an existing orchard. However, the Improvement Trust did not grant the exemption, leading to the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court.

2. Alleged Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution:

The appellants argued that the failure to exempt their orchard while similar orchards of other persons were exempted was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed this claim, stating that the appellants had not shown how the acquisition of their land was unnecessary for the scheme. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, which means equal laws must be applied to all persons in similar circumstances. The Court found no evidence of hostile discrimination against the appellants and stated that mere erroneous exemption of another party's land does not entitle the appellants to the same exemption.

3. Requirement for the Improvement Trust to Provide Reasons:

The appellants contended that the Improvement Trust, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, was required to give reasons for its decision to include their land in the development scheme. The High Court rejected this argument, noting that the appellants had not raised this point before the Trust. The Supreme Court also dismissed this contention, stating that there is no statutory requirement for the Trust to provide reasons for its decisions under Section 56 of the Act.

4. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 56 of the Punjab Towns Improvement Act, 1922:

Section 56 of the Act provides for the abandonment of acquisition in consideration of special payment. The Supreme Court clarified that this section applies only when the acquisition of land is discovered to be unnecessary for the execution of the scheme. The appellants had no locus standi to invoke Section 56 as there was no finding that the acquisition of their land was unnecessary. The Court emphasized that the existence of an orchard is irrelevant if the land is necessary for the scheme.

5. Alleged Policy Decision by the State Government to Exempt Fully Developed Orchards:

The appellants argued that there was a policy decision by the State Government to exempt fully developed orchards from acquisition. The Supreme Court found no evidence of such a policy decision authorized by the Act. A memorandum from the Secretary to the Government advising the Trust not to acquire fully developed orchards did not amount to a general policy decision. The Court noted that any policy decision should have been considered before the final sanction of the scheme. The Court also stated that Section 43 of the Act, which allows alteration of the scheme between its sanction and execution, does not confer a right on individuals to demand such alteration.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants had no right to claim exemption of their land under Section 56 of the Act or based on an alleged policy decision. The Court found no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and upheld the legality of the Improvement Trust's order. The appeal was dismissed without costs.