Holding

Acquisition of land vested under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act remains valid irrespective of later extension of the Land Acquisition Act or subsequent amendments, and the acquisition does not lapse for delay in award.

Summary

The appellants' land was acquired by the State of Rajasthan under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, and vested in the State upon publication of a notification in 1984. After this vesting, the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was extended to Rajasthan and the State amended its own Act in 1987 and 1990. The appellants challenged the acquisition, arguing that the award was not made within two years as required by Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, that the extension of the Central Act rendered the State Act inoperative, and that a scheme for urban improvement was a prerequisite for acquisition. The Supreme Court held that once the land vested under Section 52(1), subsequent extension of the Central Act and later amendments were legally irrelevant and could not divest the State of ownership; the acquisition does not lapse even if an award is delayed, and a scheme is not a condition for acquisition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

The effect of the extension of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to Rajasthan on land already vested under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959.
Whether failure to make an award within the two‑year period prescribed in Section 11‑A of the Land Acquisition Act causes the acquisition to lapse.
Whether a scheme for urban improvement is a mandatory condition for acquisition under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act.
The relevance of the 1987 Amendment Act and the 1990 Validation Act to pending acquisition proceedings.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11-A, s. 17, s. 4, s. 48, s. 6
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955s. 31
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959s. 52(1), s. 52(2), s. 52(4), s. 60-A
Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987

Subjects

land acquisitionvestingRajasthan Urban Improvement ActLand Acquisition Act 1894award periodscheme requirementstatutory amendmentpublic purposecompensation

Judgment

A PRATAP & ANR.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

FEBRUARY 27, 1996

B (J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959: Sections 52(1), (2) & (4)
and 60-A.
-
C Land Acquisition-Land vested in State Government free from all
. encumbrances after publication of notification under S.52( 1}-Subsequently,
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 extended to the State and amendments were
made to the Rajasthan Urban improvement Act-Held : Neither the amend-
ments nor extension of the Central Act are relevant and of no consequence
D to the vesting-Even if award is not made within the prescribed period the
acquisition would not lapse-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.. 4,6, 11-A, 17
and 48-Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987-Rajasthan
Urban Improvement (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990.

Land Acquisition-Scheme-Framing of-Held : Not a condition
E precental for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act for a public
purpose or under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act for the purpose
improvement or for any other pwpose under the Rajasthan Act.

The land belonging ,to the appellants was acquired by the State
Government under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improve-
F
ment Act, 1959. The land in question vested in the State Government
free from all encumbrances with the publication of the notification under
Section 52(1) of the Act. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
extended to the State. Subsequently, the State Legislature passed the
Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987 and the Rajas-
G than Urban Improvement (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990 with a
view to amending the provisions of the Principal Act and to provide for
certain transitory and special procedure for the disposal of pending land
acquisition cases.

H The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court challeng-
1088
...
PRATAPv. STATE 1089

ing the aforesaid acquisition on the ground that no award had A_
,....... been made within two years of the notification under Section 52 of the
Act; and that with the extension of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the
State Act ceased to have any operation and thereafter acquisition
proceedings were required ·to be taken under the relevant provisions of
the Central Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Hence this B
appeal.

On behalf of the appellants .it was contended that land could not
be acquired under Section 52 of the Act unless and until there was a
scheme for improvement of the urban area under the Act.
c
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD 1.1. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was extended to the
State of Rajasthan only after the land in question had vested in the State
Government with the publication of the notification under Section 52(1) D
- of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. Once the vesting of the
land in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, was com-
pleted the subsequent extension of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the
State and the amendments made by the Rajasthan Urban Improvement
(Amendment) Act. 1987 and the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amend· E
ment and Validatfon) Act, 1990 to the Rajasthan Urban Improvement
Act becomes wholly irrelevant and of no consequence. Neither the
amendments nor the extension of the Central Act can have the effect, in
law or otherwise, of divesting the State of ownership of the land which
bad already been vested in it. (1098-B-C]
F
1.2. Once possession bad been taken under Section 17(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act and the land vested in the Government then the
Government could not withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 and
provisions of Section 11-A are not attracted and, therefore, the acquisi-
tion proceedings would not lapse on failure to make an award within G
the period prescribed therein. (1098-E-FJ

1.3. The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 60-A of the
Validating Act are analogous to Section 17-A of the Land Acquisition
Act and non-compliance with the said provisions will not in anyway H
...
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A amount to the divesting of acquisition which has taken place or the
acquisition proceeding having lapsed. [1099-D]
..
Satendra Prasad . Ja_in v. State of U.P., [1993] 4 SCC 369; P.
CMinanna v. State o..J.A.P., [1994] 5 SCC 4§6 and Awadh Biha1i Yadav
v. State of Bihar, [1995] 6 SCC 31, relied on.
B ' '

2. Even if there is no scheme prepared or finalised, under a Housing
Board or Urban Improvement Act, acquisition could be validly made under
-
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose or under the
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act for the purpose of improvement or for
C any other purpose under the Act. [1101-H, 1102-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 624-25
of 1995 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.92 of the Rajasthan
D High Court in D.B.C.SA. (W) No. 618 & 607 of 1992.
AK. Sen, AP. Dhamija and Sushi! Kr. Jain, for the Appellants.

AK. GoeJ. for the Resp~)l~dent No. 3.

E Aruneshwar Gupta for the State. !'

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KIRPAL, J. In these appeals the challenge is to the decision of the
F Rajasthan High Court who had upheld the acquisition of land of the
appellants which had been acquired by the respondents under the
provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the said Act').

The proceedings for acquisition of land of the appellants com-
G menced with the State of Rajasthan issuing notification dated 10th
October, 1979, under Section 52(2) of the said Act proposing to acquire
the land, described in the said notification, which was situated in various
villages in and around the city of Jaipur. The notification stated that it
was necessary to acquire the land mentioned therein for improvement of
H · land of Sector 1A of Jaipur City for the purposes of multipurpose
....
PRATAPv. STATE [KIRPAL; J.) 1091

schemes, i.e., for the construction of buildings residential, commercial and A
industrial units. By this notification information was given to all the
concerned owners and persons interested in the land which was sought
to be acquired to file any objections, which they had, against the proposed
acquisition. In respect of the land of the appellants notification under
Section 52(1) of the said Act was issued on 20th April, 1984. It was stated B
therein that the land mentioned in the said notification was needed under
the said Act for the improvement of urban areas and this notification was
issued after considering those objections which had been filed by the
interested persons. It was also notified that on the date of publication of
the said notification in the Rajasthan Rajpatra "the said larid shall be C
vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances". Though,
this notification was dated 7th March, 1984, the same was, however,
published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on 20th April, 1984.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was extended to the State of
Rajasthan on 24th September, 1984. Some of the persons whose lands D
were acquired filed suits challenging the acquisition proceedings under
Section 52 of the said Act. According to the appellants the said suits
were dismissed on 2nd September, 1986. Awards were passed on different
dates. In the present appeals the awards were passed on 30th September,
1988, 30th November, 1988 and 28th June, 1989. E

A number of writ petitions were then filed in the Rajasthan High'
Court. Vide a common judgment dated 21st October, 1992, a Single Judge
of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed 24 writ. petitiOns and upheld the
acquisition of the land which had been made. Appeals were filed against F
the said judgment and a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
dismissed the same on 17th December, 1992. Civil Appeal Nos. 624-25
and 626-28 of 1993 challenge the aforesaid judgment of the Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
G
Another set of appeals against the judgment of the Single Judge of
the Rajasthan High Court were dismissed by the Division Bench vide
judgment dated 12th May, 1994, by following its earlier decision of 17th
December, 1992. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1597_1of1995 is filed
against this judgment. H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) 2 S.C.R.

A The main contention which has been urged on behalf of the
appellants is that no award had been made within two years of the
notification issued under Section 52 of the said Act. It was contended
that with the Land Acquisition Act 1894 having been extended, the
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 ceased to have any operation
B and thereafter acquisition proceedings were required to be taken under
the relevant provisions of the Central Act. Section 11-A of. the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 requires that the awards should be made within two
years of the publication of Section 6 notification and, it was submitted,
that in the· instant cases the awards were inade beyond the said period
C of two years and without complying with the provisions of Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

It was also subinitted by Mr. A.K. Sen, learned senior counsel for
the appellants, that another Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
in the case of Narain and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1993) 2 Western
D Law Cases (Rajasthan) 738 had quashed the notification of 10th October,
1979, issued Under Section 52(2) of the said Act as well as the notification
dated 7th March, 1984, issued under Section 52(1) of the said Act. The
submission was that as this judgment has not so far been reversed,
therefore, this Court must hold that the acquisition allegedly made by the
E respondents could no longer be sustained..
Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 contains
provision for compulsory acquisition of the land and the same reads as
under :-
F "Compulsory acquisition of land - (1) Where on representation
from the Trust [or otherwise] it appears to the State Government
that any land is required for the purpose of improvement or for
any other purpose under this Act, the State Government may
acquire such land by publishing in the official Gazette a notice
G specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required
and stating that the State Government has decided to acquire
the land in pursuance of this section.

(2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the State
H Governnient shall by another notice call upon the owner of the
PRATAPv. STATE[KIRPAL,J.) 1093

land and any other person who in the opinion of the State A

- Government may be interested therein to show cause, within such
time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not
be acquired.

[Such notice shall be individually served upon the owner of the B
land and any other person who in the opinion of the State
Government may be interested therein; It shall also be published
in the Official Gazette at least 30 days in advance and shall be
pasted on some conspicuous place in the locality, where the land
to be acquired is situate. Such publication and pasting of notice
shall be deemed as sufficient and proper service of notice upon C
the owner of the land and upon all other persons who may be
interested therein.]

(3) Within the time specified in the notice, the owner of the
land or any other person interested therein may show cause and D
make objections, why the land should not be acquired. Every
such objection to the notice given under sub-section (2) shall be
made in writing to the Officer on Special Duty, or any other
officer appointed by the State Government for the purpose. Such
officer shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, E
either in person or by pleader, and after hearing all such
objections and after making such enquiry, as he deems necessary,
shall submit the case for the decision of the State Government
together with the record of the proceedings held by him and a
report containing his recommendations on the objections. There- F
after, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems
fit. The decision of the State Government thereon shall be final.

(4) When a notice under sub-section (1) is published in the
Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date of such
publication, vest absolutely in the State Government free from G
all encumbrances.

-- (5) Where any land is vested in the State Government under
sub-section (4), the State Government may, by notice in writing,
order any person who may be in possession of the land to H
1094 SUPREME COURT RE_PORTS (1996) 2 S.C.R.

surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government
or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty
days of the service of the notice. ·· '

(6) If any person refuses or fails to eomply with any order made
under sub-section (5), the State Government may take possession
B
of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be
necessary.

(7) After the land has been acquired and its ·possession taken
the State Government .shall, on payment of the amount of
c compensation as determined under section 53, the amount or'
interest thereon and of all. other charges incurred by the State
Government in this conriection, · transfer it to the Trust ·or any
other prescribed authority or department for the purpose for
which it is acquired.
D_
·~ .1 ., Provided that such transfer of the land may be made to the
... _

Trust or to ,aJ?.Y,,,other prescribed authority or the Department of
the Government without reppvering any amount,-
I ,, ' ~

(i) where the .State Government is satisfied
HV
that any such
E land is urgently needed by the Trust, prescribed auth<?rir; or
Department of the Government for carrying out improvement
under the Act .immediately, or

(ii) where any such land is intended to· be allotted free of
F charge to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tn'bes or to person
entited under section 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955
[Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955)· to possess a site for a residential house
in the abadi of the Urban area free of charge.]

(8) Any notice issued or published by the State Government
G under this section may also be issued or published for and on
behalf of it by any officer subordinate to it so authorised."

After the extension of the Land Acquisition Act, .1894, to the State
of Rajasthan, the existing Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act; 1959 stood
H repealed. The State Legislature then passed the Rajasthari. Urban Im-
(
PRATAPv. STATE [KIRPAL, J.] 1095

provement (Amendment) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A
Amending Act'), with a view to amend the provisions of the Principal
Act and to provide for certain transitory and special procedure for the
disposal of pending and present proceedings as well as payment of
compensation, interest etc. The Amending Act incorporated a new
provision, namely, Section 60 A in the Principal Act. This Section 60 A B
provided for transitory provisions for pending matters relating to acquisi-
tion of land. Sub-section (3) of this section relating to the period within
which the award could be made was as follows :

"(3) Where in a matter pending on the date of commencement, C
a notice under sub-section (2) of section 52 or a notice under
sub-section (1) thereof has been served or, as the case may be,
published, such notice shall be deemed to be the notification or
declaration published or made under sub-section (1) of section
4 or, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration or award in such D
a matter shall be made within a period of one year or, as the
case may be, two years from the date of commencement."

The provisions of this Amending Act were held to be ultra vires by a
decision of the Rajasthan High Court inasmuch as the said Act did not E
have the assent of the President. Thereupon, the Rajasthan Urban Im-
provement (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Validating Act) was passed which received the assent of the
President on 24th March, 1995. A new Section 60-A was inserted in the
Principal Act which contained a transitory provision and which reads as F
follows :-

"60-A Transitory provisions for pending matters relating to ac-
qui~ition of land notwithstanding anything otherwise contained
in sub-section (1) of Section 52, where in any matter relating to G
the acquisition of land pending on the date of commencement
of the Rafasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1987
(here-ill.after in this section referred to as the date of commen-
cement), an action, thing or order has been taken, done, or made
under and in a~cordance with the provisions of this Act as it H
) \
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A stood before the date of commencement such action, thing, or
order shall not be re-opened or reviewed or be liable to be
challenged on the ground that such action, thing or order was
at variance with that provided in the Land acquisition Act, 1894
(Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter in this section referred to
B as the Land Acquisition Act) subject however that any further
proceedings action or order in such matter conducted, taken or
made on or after the date of commencement shall subject to the
other provisions of this section, be made under and in accordance
with the Land Acquisition Act.
c (2) The amount of compensation or interest or that payable for
any other reasons shall in a matter . pending on the date of
commencement be payable under and in accordance with the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the money paid prior
to the date of commencement shall be deduced from or adjusted
D against the said amount.

(3) Where in a matter pending on the date of commencement,
a notice under sub~section (2) of Section 52 or a notice under
sub-section (1) thereof has been served or as the case may be
E published such notice shall be deemed to be the notification or
declaration published or made under sub-section (1) of Section
4, or as the case may be, under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration or award in such
a matter shall be made within a period of one year or, as the
F case may be, two years from the date of commencement.

(4) Where any land has, prior to the date of commencement,
vested in the State Government or its possession has been taken
in accordance with the provisions of this Act as it stood before
G the date of commencement, such vesting or possession of land
shall not be liable to be challenged on the ground that no amount
of compensation was tendered and paid in accordance with
sub-section (3-A) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition: Act
subject, however, that such amount shall be tendered and-paid >

H within_ a period of six months f:r:om the date of commencement.
PRATAPv. STAIB[KIRPAL,J.] 1097
'
(5) In determining "the amount of compensation to be awarded A
in a matter pending on the dat~ of commencement, the market
value of the land at the date on which the notice was published
in the official gazette under clause (b) of sub-section (6) of
Section 52 as it stood before the date of commencement shall
be taken into consideration. B

(6) An appeal filed under Section 54 or Section 56 or a dispute
referred under Section 55 or Section 59 and pending on the date
of commencement shall be decided having regard to the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act."
c
The provisions of Section 52(2) of the said Act are akin to Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to this section before publishing
a notice under sub-section (1), a notice is issue:d to the owners of land
and other persons, who are interested, to show cause why the State D
Government should not acquire the land. Due publicity of the issuance
of the said notice is required to be given,. apart from individual service
of the said notice. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 enables the owners or
the person interested to show cause and file objections against the
proposed acquisitioh of the land. These objections are to be in writing
and an opportunity of being heard, in person or through pleader, has to E
be afforded by the Officer on Special Duty to the objectors. Thereupon
a report is required to be given to the State Government containing the
recommendations on the objections which are filed. It is evident that the
enquiry envisaged by sub-section (3) of Section 52 is similar to the one
under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is after complying F
with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) that the State Government
can issue a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 52 acquiring the
land specified in the notification for the purpose of improvement or for
. any other purpose under the Act. On the said notification under Section
52 (1) being issued, sub-section (4) of Section 52 provides that with the G
publication of the notice in the Official Gazette, the land shall on and

- from the date of the publication "vest absolutely in the State Government
free from all encumbrances". Once the land has so vested, possession is
to be taken by the State Government and after the amount of compen-
sation is determined according to Section 52, the payment of the same is H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A to be made and the land can then be transferred to the Improvement
Trust.

From the facts narrated hereinabove it is clear that the Central Act
was extended to the State of Rajasthan only after the land in question
B had vested in the State Government with the publication of the notifica-
tion under Section 52 (1) on 10th October, 1984. Once the vesting of the
land in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, was completed
the subsequent extension of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the State
of Rajasthan and the amendments made by the Amending Acts to the
C Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act becomes wholly irrelevant and
of no consequence. Neither the amendments nor the extension of the
Central Act can have the effect, in law or otherwise, of divesting the State
. of ownership of the land which had already been vested in it.

D The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 52 are somewhat similar
to Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Just as publication of a
notification under Section 52(1) vests the land in the State, free from all
encumbrances, as provided by Section 52(4), similarly when possession of
land is taken under Section 17(1) the land vests absolutely in the
Government free from all e1:1cumbrances. A question arose before this
E Court that if there is a non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A
and an award is not mad\;: in respect to the land so acquired, would the
acquisition proceedings lapse. In Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. v. State
of U.P. and Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 369 this Court held that once possession
had been taken under Section 17(1) and the land vested in the Govern-
F ment then the Government could not withdraw from acquisition under
Section 48 and the provisions of Section 11-A were not attracted and,
therefore, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse on failure to make
an award within the period prescribed therein. It was further held that
non-compliance of Section 17 (3-A), regarding part payment of compen-
G sation before taking possession, would also not render the possession
illegal and entitle the Government to withdraw from acquisition. The
aforesaid principle has been reiterated by this Court in P. Chinnanna and
Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors., [1994] 5 SCC 486 and Awadh Bihari Yadav
and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Jrs., [1995) 6 SCC 31. In view of the
-
H aforesaid ratio it follows that the provisions of Section llA are not
l PRATAPv. STATE[KIRPAL,J.) 1099

attracted in the present case and even if it be assumed that the award A
has not been passed within the stipulated period, the acquisition of land
does not come to an end.

It was contended by the learned. counsel for the respondents that
the State had complied with all the legal requirements in the present case. B
Our attention was drawn to Section 60-A of the Amending Act and the
Validating Act and it was submitted, and in our opinion rightly, that
sub-section (3) of the Amending Act and sub-section (4) of the Validating
Act only required the making of the award and payment of money within
the period stipulated therein. The facts narrated hereinabove show that C
this was done. In any case non-compliance with the provisions of this
sub-section will not in any way affect the vesting of the land which has
already taken place with the publication of the notification dated 20th
April, 1984. The provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 60-A of the
Validating Act are analogous to Section 17-A of the Land Acquisition
Act and as held in the aforesaid decisions of this Court non-compliance D
with the said provisions will not in any way amount to the divesting of ·
acquisition which has taken place or the acquisition proceedings having
lapsing.

There is also no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for E
the appellants that the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan
·High Court rendered in 1993 in Narain's case (supra) 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 have been filed and the same are F
pending in this Court; secondly this decision has not been approved by
a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in its judgment dated 1st
November, 1995 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 255 of 1995 - Urban
Improvement. Trnst, Jodhpur v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. and the
other connected cases. In this judgment, dealing with Narain's case the G
Full Bench observed as follows :

"The Division Bench of this Court in the case Narain v. State of
Raj. & Ors. reported in (1993) 2 WLN 527, has held that the
acquisition proceedings cannot be ' taken in the absence of H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} 2 S.C.R. ~
A sanctioned notified scheme. This view has bee11 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 Ninnan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 's case to the facts and
circumstances of the case before the Division Bench. Considera-
B tion of paras 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 .othenyise. With utmost respect, it is difficult
to agree with the observations made and view expressed by the
Division Bench in the case of Narain (supra) as regards the
c decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gandhi Grah
Nimian Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (supra)."

It is indeed unfortunate that the judgment of the Division Bench in Narain's
case was relied on, when .the same had been over-ruled by the Full B~nch
D of that Court without referring to the. Full Bench decision. Further-more
even on merits we find that the said decision of the Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court in Narain's case does not lay down the correct law·
and the later decision of the Full Bench is correctly decided. The conten-
tion which was raised before the High Court, and it succeeded, in Narain's
E 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 que?!!on 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
F 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 and Anr. v. A Mohammed Yousef and Ors., '[1991) 4 SCC 224.

Decision of this Court in Gandhi Grah Ninnan Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
G and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1993) 2 SCC 662 .also considered
a similar question pertaining to the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act,
1959 itself. It had been contended that land could not be acquired under

H
Section 52 of the Act unless and until there was a scheme for improve-
ment of the urban area under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act,
1959. Rejecting this contention this Court observed as follows :
-
PRATAPv. STATE[KIRPAL,J.] 1101

"The crux of the argument is .that the improvement in the urban A
area can only be carried out by executing the schemes framed
under the Act and in no other way. We do not agree with Mr.
Shanti Bhushan. Under the scheme of the Act the improvement
of the urban area can be undertaken by the Trust and also by
any of the departments of the Government. The framing of the B
scheme becomes mandatory only when the work is undertaken
by the Trust. The State Government, in any of its departments,
may decide to develop the urban area under the Act and in that
case it would not be necessary for the Government to have a
scheme framed under Chapter V of the Act. The power of the C
State Government to acquire land under the Act has been
designed to meet the scheme of the Act. Under Section 52 of
the Act the land can be acquired by the State Government at
the instance of the Trust, or a department of the Government
or any prescribed authority. The plain language of Section 52(1) D
of the Act negates the contention raised by Mr. Shanti Bhushan.
Where on a representation from the Trust or otherwise it appears
to the State Government that any land is required for the purpose
of improvement or for any other purpose under the Act it can
acquire such land by issuing a notification under Section 52(1)
of the Act. It is, thus, clear that the State Government has the E
power to acquire land either for the execution of the schemes
framed by the Trust under Chapter V of the Act or for any
other public purpose under the Act. No fault can be found with
the procedure followed by the State Government in this Case.
The notification issued by the State Government under sub-sec- F
tion (1) of Section 52 of the Act specifically states that the land
was being acquired for the construction of residential, commer-
cial and administrative buildings. The Government - having taken
a policy decision to acquire land for the public purpose - was
justified in l.ssuing the notification under Section 52(1) of the G
Act in respect of the land in dispute."

The effect of this is that even if there is no scheme prepared or
finalised, under a Housing Board or Urban Improvement Act, acquisition
could be validly made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act H
~
j
\
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A for a public purpose or under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act for
the purpose of improvement or for any other purpose under the Act. The
decision relating to the Rajasthan Act is directly on the point. The other
decision under the Tamil Nadu Act does not, therefore, require any
further discussion.
B For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals
and the same are dismissed with costs.

Civil Appeal No. 3851of1996
(@ SLP (C) No. 15971/95)
c Leave granted. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

V.S.S. Appeal d~smissed.

D