9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. IV), 1922 (hereinafter called the Act). The scheme covered an area measuring approximately 128 acres within the boundaries of the Municipality of Amritsar. It was framed vide resolution No. 125 dated November 10, 1961. Notice under Section 36 of the Act was issued on November 21, 1961 and was published in three consecutive issues of the Punjab Govt. Gazette in December, 1961; it was duly published in the daily Tribune and Milap as well. A copy of the said notice along with survey plan of the area was also sent to the President and to the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Committee Amritsar is in accordance with Section 36(2)(b) of the Act. Notices under Section 38 of the Act were also issued to the owners and occupiers in the area covered by the scheme. In response to notices under Sections 36 and 38 objections were received and considered by the Trust in June, 1962 when the objectors were also called for personal hearing. The lay out of the scheme prepared after considering the objections was again considered by the Trust in its meeting held in October, 1962 and was approved by means of a resolution. At this meeting it was decided by the Trust to exclude from the purview of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s application was rejected by the Trust by means of the impugned order which was challenged by the appellants by means of a writ petition (W, P. No, 2314 of 1970) in the Punjab & Haryana High Court in July, 1970. 2. Though in the writ petition it was also pleaded that the provisions of the Act are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, in so far as they provided for two types of acquisition namely, (i) wholesale acquisition and (ii) acquisition which permits possession with certain land owners by exempting their lands on payment of betterment contribution only, apparently at the time of arguments in the High Court this challenge to the statute was not pressed. In the High Court as appears from the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench the only point urged was that the Trust had given no reasons in the impugned order as to why the entire land of the appellants was considered necessary for the execution of the scheme. The Trust, it was contended, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when determining the claims under Section 56 of the Act and, therefore, it was required to give reasons for its conclusions that the entire land belonging to the appellant was " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered to be necessary for the execution of that scheme and that is why it was included therein. The petitioners have not shown as to how it was not essential for the said scheme. The Improvement Trust has given reasons as to why the acquisition is necessary. It is needless to mention that the petitioners will get adequate compensation for their land which has been acquired for the said scheme. It was conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that it was not the requirement of the statute that the Trust should give reasons for saying as to how a particular land was necessary for the scheme. At any rate, in this case it has been proved on the record that the petitioner's land was essential for the development scheme framed by the Improvement Trust. 3. In this Court, to begin with, Shri Gupta learned Counsel for the appellants pressed his application CM.P. No. 1424 of 1971 under Order 47 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules for the production of the agreement dated April 8,1964 between the Trust and Akhara Brahm Buta, Amritsar through its Mahant Shri Bikram Das Chela Mahant Lachaman Dass whereby the Improvement Trust agreed to exempt an area measuring 100 Kanals under an orchard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point which could be said to be binding on the parties on any material points requiring determination in the present proceedings. 4. The appellants' counsel then referred to the written statement filed by the Trust and subjected it to criticism by contending that the Trust had not been straight and fair inasmuch as it had not fully stated all the necessary facts with the candour expected of a public body in its dealings with citizens' property. He next strongly urged that there was clear violation of the Constitutional guarantee of equality before law and of the equal protection of the laws contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. Considerable emphasis was laid on the argument that there was a policy decision arrived at by the Government that all lands under fully developed orchards should be exempted from the operation of the scheme and according to the appellants' submission refusal to exempt the appellants' lands under orchards, when the lands under orchards belonging to other persons similarly placed had been exempted, has resulted in hostile discrimination against the appellants, being in breach of the policy decision. In answer to the question whether Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by him is sufficient, execute an agreement with the Trust either - (i) to pay the said sum three years after the date of the agreement, or (ii) to leave the said sum outstanding as a charge on his interest in the land, subject to the payment of interest at a rate to be agreed upon by such person and the Trust until the said sum has been paid in full and to make the first annual payment of such interest four years after the date of the agreement ; Provided that the Trust may, at any time before the Collector has taken possession of the land under Section 16 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, accept immediate payment of the said sum instead of an agreement as aforesaid. (6) When any agreement has been executed in pursuance of Sub-section (5) or when any payment has been accepted in pursuance of the proviso to that sub-section in respect of any land, proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall be deemed to be abandoned. (7) Every payment due from any person under any agreement executed under Sub-section (5) shall be a charge on the interest of that person. (8) If any instalment of interest payable under an agreement executed in pursuance of Clause (ii) of Sub-section ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Acquisition Act, 1894 for making claims in reference to the land. When all those conditions are complied with then the Trust is bound to admit the application so made if the applicant either owns the lands in question or is a mortgagee or a lessee thereof with an unexpired lease period of seven years. When, however, such an application is made by some other person having an interest in the land, the Trust may admit it in its discretion. It is noteworthy that unless the acquisition of land is discovered to be unnecessary for the execution of the scheme this section does not operate lands from the scheme under this 'section. The existence of an orchard on such land which is not unnecessary for the execution of the scheme would by a wholly irrelevant consideration. In the present case there is no finding that the acquisition of the appellants' land has been discovered to be unnecessary for the execution of the scheme. Therefore, the appellants had no locus standi to invoke Section 56. The mere fact that exemption of land under orchard was granted to Mahant Bikram Das as alleged by the appellants, even assuming that exemption to be purporting to be under Section 56 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of exempting his fruit orchards then refusal to extend the same exemption to the appellants is clearly violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to them by Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the argument is misconceived. 7. To begin with we are not satisfied of the existence of any such policy decision as is suggested. Memorandum No. 6907-26111-64 dated August 18, 1964 from the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Local Government Department, to the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Amritsar indicating agreement with the recommendation of the Horticulture Department and advising the Trust not to acquire fully developed orchards does not seem to us to amount to any general policy decision authorised by the Act. It does not fell under any provision of the Act which would clothe the owners of the orchards to claim alteration of the scheme or abandonment of acquisition of their orchards. The scheme, it may be recalled, had been finally sanctioned by the State Government about six months earlier and our attention was not drawn to any provision of the Act which could justify any such policy decision after the final sanction of the scheme which could vest in appellants a right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn it for consideration. But a dined scheme after re-consideration is required again to be republished under Section 36. It is thereafter that a scheme is sanctioned and notified by the State Government. The provisions of Chapter IV clearly disclose a keen anxiety on the part of the lawmakers to see that all possible objections to the scheme are fully considered before its final sanction. It appears that any policy decisions arrived at by the State Government for excluding from the scheme, lands under orchards, would have been considered by the State Government before finally sanctioning the scheme. There was ample opportunity for that purpose. The owners of the orchards were expected to have moved in time and the State Government could also have incorporated its decision in the scheme as finally sanctioned by it. The Act does not seem to us to contemplate any change or alteration in the sanctioned scheme pursuant to any subsequent policy decision arrived at by the State Government as suggested on behalf of appellants. There is accordingly no scope for the argument that the Government had arrived at a policy decision which was left to the Trust for implementation. In any event our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as suggested on behalf of the appellants. However, without expressing any considered, opinion on the scope and effect of this section we have no doubt that this section does not entitle the appellants to claim a right to the alteration of the scheme pursuant to any alleged policy decision of the State Government so as to exclude their orchards from the acquisition proceedings either under Section 43 or under Section 56 or claim exemption independently of these sections. This submission accordingly also fails. 10. We have gone into the question of violation or Article 14 of the Constitution though in the High Court's judgment it was specifically stated that the learned Counsel for the petitioners there had not urged the point of discrimination and the only point argued there was that the Trust was bound while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity to give reasons as to why the entire land belonging to the appellants was necessary for the execution of the scheme! Although in the High Court's judgment it is observed that the point of discrimination had not been urged in that Court we have gone into this question because, according to Shri Gupte, this was the main point on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
