URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST UDAIPUR Vs. BHERU LAL
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
September 20,2002
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, UDAIPUR
Appellant
VERSUS
BHERU LAL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KHADIM HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD RAJA RAM JAISWAL VS. RAJA RAM JAISWAL:COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAGHUBIR DAYAL [REFERRED]
RELIANCE PETROLEUM LIMITED VS. ZAVER CHAND POPATLAL SUMARIA [REFERRED]
S H RANGAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
KIRAT LODHI VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-9-133] [REFERRED TO]POORAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-303] [REFERRED]
PREM LATA NIGAM VS. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
KOLAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-297] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA MALPANI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-7-221] [REFERRED TO]
MOAZAM KHAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
M S DEWAN VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN AND 4 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-367] [REFERRED TO]
AAR PEE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM NIYOJAN KENDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-192] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ASHOK NIGAM VS. LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-212] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND PRASAD SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH ARORA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-226] [REFERRED]
RAJESH BHADORIYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARBHAI ANANDABHAI TANK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-8-462] [REFERRED TO]
H.M.KRISHNA REDDY VS. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1518] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN RAM, SON OF SHRI LICHMAN RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY PAL SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-77] [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS MATHEW AND ORS. VS. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-481] [REFERRED TO]
GOUNDATHAL VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-149] [REFERRED TO]
PENMATSA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2013-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE EMPLOYEE HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(KAR)-2002-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJ & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-8-265] [REFERRED]
SUMER KHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-4-132] [REFERRED]
N. UMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVELS STAR HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR GOUSHALAWALE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2003-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
U P SAMAJ COOPERATIVE HOUSE VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-128] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR SAHKARI AVAS SAMITILTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-238] [REFERRED TO]
GLOBE METAL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
HIMANSHU KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
KHATOON & 6 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P & 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-309] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P & OTHERS VS. RAMESHWAR & OTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-146] [REFERRED TO]
R.G. AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION AND ORS. VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MANOHARLAL ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-242] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANTI NIKETAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-321] [REFERRED TO]
MOOL CHAND VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-174] [REFERRED TO]
RIDH KARAN REKECHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2004-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
BHERU LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
BANDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MOTI LAL AGARWAL [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG AGARWAL VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
S.K. MEHROTRA VS. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PUNJA TRAMBAK LAHAMAGE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
RAVEENDRAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL SON OF SAMPAT LAL, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, BY CASTE JAIN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NIMDA GATE, BHARATPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN SECRETARIAT, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAVA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-117] [REFERRED TO]
HATAM SINGH AND OTHERS; DEEPA GARG; NEMI NATH FOUN VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-338] [REFERRED]
JAIMON VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(KER)-2008-6-30] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
(2.)The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made by the State of Rajasthan on 21st February, 1990 for acquiring approximately 4800 bighas of land situated in Tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur as it was required by Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Improvement Trust'), for the public purpose i.e. Udaipur Bhuwana Extension Scheme, Udaipur. Bhuwana Extension Scheme of the Improvement Trust is a residential scheme sub-serving the objective of the planned development and utilization of the notified land. The Improvement Trust, Udaipur was established under the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Development Act, 1959 for the purpose of carrying out improvement and expansion etc. of urban area of the city Udaipur. It provides for the acquisition of any land or other property necessary for the execution of the Scheme.
(3.)Before the notification could be published in the official gazette, the Gram Panchayat, Bhuwana filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2255 of 1991 on 20.5.1991 challenging the notification dated 21st February, 1990. In the said matter, writ petitioner prayed for interim relief to the effect that the Improvement Trust should not make any allotment to any person out of the land of Khasra Nos. 2661, 2691 and 2835 of village Bhuwana and the notification be quashed. The High Court passed the following interim order in the writ petition:-
"Issue Notice.
Meanwhile the status quo as it exists today with respect to the land in question will be maintained."
(2.)The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made by the State of Rajasthan on 21st February, 1990 for acquiring approximately 4800 bighas of land situated in Tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur as it was required by Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Improvement Trust'), for the public purpose i.e. Udaipur Bhuwana Extension Scheme, Udaipur. Bhuwana Extension Scheme of the Improvement Trust is a residential scheme sub-serving the objective of the planned development and utilization of the notified land. The Improvement Trust, Udaipur was established under the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Development Act, 1959 for the purpose of carrying out improvement and expansion etc. of urban area of the city Udaipur. It provides for the acquisition of any land or other property necessary for the execution of the Scheme.
(3.)Before the notification could be published in the official gazette, the Gram Panchayat, Bhuwana filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2255 of 1991 on 20.5.1991 challenging the notification dated 21st February, 1990. In the said matter, writ petitioner prayed for interim relief to the effect that the Improvement Trust should not make any allotment to any person out of the land of Khasra Nos. 2661, 2691 and 2835 of village Bhuwana and the notification be quashed. The High Court passed the following interim order in the writ petition:-
"Issue Notice.
Meanwhile the status quo as it exists today with respect to the land in question will be maintained."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.