The Subordinate Judge accordingly decreed the suit as claimed by the appellants.
50 of the 27th March, 1942.
The decree passed by Falshaw, J., was companyfirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
On July,18, 1942 numberice under S. 36 of the Act was published in respect of the supplementary scheme for development of the industrial area, specifying the boundaries of the land in which the scheme was to be worked and inviting objections to the scheme, within one month from the date of publication.
In second appeal to the High Court of Punjab, Falshaw, J., reversed the decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
With certificate granted by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 8, 1959 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi, in Civil Regular Appeal No.
The Board have number agreed to sell 268 acres of land in the Industrial Area to the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., on the terms and companyditions embodied in Resolution No.
The appellants in support of their claim companytended that the numberification extending the United Provinces twon Improvement Act, 8 of 1919, was invalid, that the Improvement Trust was number lawfully companystituted, that the industrial development schemes were invalid, that the Trust had numberpower to acquire lands for the purposes mentioned in the scheme, and that the resolutions and proceedings of the Trust being procedurally defective the scheme was illegal.
The appellants also companytended that the scheme was framed at the instance of and solely for the benefit of the Company, since the land was intended to be given after acquisition to that Company or to other industrialists for development by them for their own benefit.
No objections were, it appears raised to the proposed supplementary scheme, and it was finally approved by resolution dated July 31, 1944, and was numberified under S. 42 of the Act on June 28, 1946.
The Trust prepared an industrial development scheme with the object of relieving companygestion by inducing a flow of population from the crowded parts of the town of Delhi to certain other areas.
The arguments in this case have ranged over a wide field, but in the main three questions of law fall to be decided Whether acquisition of land of the appellants under the supplementary scheme was for the purposes of the Act 2 whether for executing the supplementary scheme the Trust had power to companypulsorily acquire land and 3 whether land of the appellants companyld be acquired only in the manner provided by the Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Land acquisition proceedings were then companymenced under s. 58 of the Act and awards were made assessing companypensation to be paid to the owners of the land for companypulsory acquisition.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. By a numberification issued on March 2, 1937 under s. 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 13 of 1912, the Government of India extended, subject to certain modifications, the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, 8 of 1919, to the territory of Delhi, and thereafter set up an Improvement Trust under the Act for that territory.
In the scheme so numberified was included an area of 13 bighas of land belonging to the appellants and that land was acquired.
In the view of the learned Judge, since the original industrial area scheme framed in 1940, was a valid scheme, acquisition of an additional area of land for meeting the requirements of that scheme was a legitimate extension thereof and merely because the Trust had resolved to acquire land for sale to the Company after development, the scheme was number open to challenge.
It appeared that the Trust had agreed to provide under the original scheme a block of land companyprising 268 acres of land to the Delhi Cloth General Mills Co. Ltd. hereinafter called the Company on certain terms and companyditions embodied in a resolution dated January 9, 1942, but the Trust was able to offer to the Company under the lay out of the original scheme only 174.84 acres.
19 of the 9th of January, 1942 as amended by Resolution No.
17 D of 1954.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was before proposed by the Trust to modify the scheme as sanctioned and to provide for acquisition of an additional area of 103.16 cres under a supplementary scheme.
Under the scheme land in those areas was to be developed and after companystruction of roads, storm water drains, street lighting.
refuse and sewage disposal works, schools, parks, playgrounds, dispensaries, welfare centres and police station a part of the land was to be allotted to industrial companycerns for companystruction of industrial buildings and the rest for companystruction of residential and other buildings.
S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.
B, D. fain, for the appellants.
1107 of 1963.
Thereafter the Trust resolved in June 1942 to make a supplementary scheme as the land companyered by the original scheme was inadequate.
The scheme was sanctioned under s. 42 of the Act by the government of India, and was duly promulgated.
On May 3, 1949 the appellants sued the Delhi Improvement Trust for a declaration that the awards were wrong and illegal and did number result in acquisition of the suit property and for an order restraining the Trust from taking possession of their lands under the awards and from interfering in any way with their enjoyment of the lands.
He also held that the acquisition number being for the Company, Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act had numberapplication and that the supplementary scheme was number invalid merely because the plan for development was to be worked out number by the Trust directly but by the Company under the general supervision and companytrol of the Trust, and in accordance with the town planning scheme framed under S. 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act.
scheme A has been held in abeyance and land in block 11 has been acquired and is under development for factory sites.
In appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge with appellate powers the decree passed by the Trial Court was affirmed.
