U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD v. RAM KRISHNA AND ORS

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 988

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN, S.N. VARIAVA

Judgment text

U. P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARJSHAD V. RAM KRISHNA A:'llD ORS. FEBRUARY 13. 2002 (G. B. PATTANAIK, S. N. PHUKAN AND S. N. VARIAVA, JJ. ] Utrar Pradesh Avas Evam Vika' Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965/Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, /'l73 Sectiuns 16, 28 and 32159 Housing . scheme framed in a development area Afotijiwtion ofthe Scheme Subsequent approval ofthe scheme by State Government Validity of Held, approval by the State Government can be unly on the final scheme prepared after consideration ofubjections lo the notified scheme Under the law, no previous approval was warranted before the notification of the Scheme. The disputed area of land was declared as a development area in 1974 under the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Act repealed the earlier Act known as the Uttar Pradesh Avas Fvam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (Adhiniyam). However, this area was exempted from the Act by an amendment u11der section 59 of the Act in 1976.

Lnder the exemption, appellant-Board is authorised to initiate new housing schemes in the development area with the approval of State Government under the Adhiniyam. In 1980, a housing scheme was notified by the appellant under section 28 of the Adhiniyam. The State Government approved t! te scheme under section 32 of the Adhiniyam in 1982. Respondents, whose lands were acquired by the appellant for the scheme, filed Writ Petitions in High Court challenging the scheme on the ground that the scheme has been notified prior • to the approval by the State Government. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions holding th - Section 28 of the Adhiniyam and objections thereon are heard and decided. > The sanction has to be a final scheme and not to any draft scheme which has been framed. For purpose of granting a sanction. The Board and/or the State Government, has to consider not just the scheme but also the objections of the persons concerned.

Only then the sanctioning authority can apply its mind as to whether the scheme is to be sanctioned and ifso with that modifications if any. Mere framing of a scheme under Section 16 of the Adhiniyam does not amount to initiation. Initiation is only when notice is given to the public or the concerned parties of the scheme, which is by way of a notification under ...... Section 28 of the Adhiniyam. [993-A-CI 1. 2. The object of exempting more schemes under the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973 is to permit more housing schemes. This, 990 Sl'PREME COURT REPORTS [2002) I S. C. R. being a beneficial measure, should not be strictly construed. It has to be given a liberal interpretation. If the State Legislature intended to permit a scheme for which previous approval was required, then the Legislature would have specifically so provided. When the Legislature wanted previous approval, it has specifically so provided under sections 56 and 58 of the Act.

This interpretation is further fortified by the fact that under the Adhiniyam there is 110 provision for granting ofapproval/sanction prior to the notification under section 28. If the Legislature wanted to make a complete departure from the procedure set out in the Adhiniyam, it would have had to specifically provide for such a contingency. The State Government cannot give approval without first knowing what the objections of the parties concerned is. It is only after the objections are considered that the State Government can decide whether the scheme is to be approved and if so whether it needs any modification. [995-F-HJ 1. 3. The Adhiniyam nowhere provides that prior approval is a precondition. What is material is to obtain approval of the State Government Till approval of the State Government is not obtained the scheme could not be notified under section 32 ofthe Adhiniyam. But once permission is granted, even though it may be granted subsequent!

), all further steps can be taken and the Board could then proceed. [996-D[ UP. Avas Evam Vikas ParishaJand Anr. , v. Friends Coop. Housing Society ltd and Anr.. [19951Supp3 sec 456, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE Jl! RISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1806 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 3. I0. 85 of the Allahabad High Court in C. M. W. P. No. 4775 of 1984. WITH C. A. No. 1807 of 1986. " Dinesh Dwivedi, P. N. Gupta, Sunil Gupta, Vivek Vishnoi, Ms. Lipika Sharma and Pramod Dayal for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. N. VARIA' \. , J. These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 3rd October, 1985 Briefly stated the facts dre as follows. 11 The area in question was declared as a development area on 20th August, 1974. On 8th, 15th and 20th March, 1980, the scheme in question was notified under Section 28 ofthe Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam).

The State Government ~ approved the scheme on 11th June, 1982. The scheme came to be notified under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam on 28th August, 1982. The Respondent then challenged the scheme on the ground that the scheme having been notified prior to the sanction of the State Government was null and void and could not be given effect to. This submission found favour with the High Court, who allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment. ~ Thus the question for consideration is whether a scheme notified under 't Section 28 of the Adhiniyam is liable to be struck down if it has not been approved by the State Government prior to its publication. This question has ! been answered by this Court in the case of UP. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr. v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. , reported in [1995] Supp 3 SCC 456. In this case it has been held that prior approval was not necessary.

It is held that the Petitioner Board could not implement the scheme 1til approval was given by the State Government. It is held that once the approval is given, all the previous acts done and actions taken get validated ~ and the publications made under the Adhiniyam also become valid. This decision covers this case squarely. However, when this matter reached hearing before a Bench of this Court it was referred to a larger Bench, inter ali11 with the following observations : ··when the matters were taken up, learned counsel stated that these appeals stand concluded by a decision of this Court in U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr. v. Friends Cooperative Housing • Society ltd. and Anr. , reported m [1995) Supp. 3 SCC 456 and, therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. We have looked into the said decision and are of the opinion that the said decision requires consideration by a Bench of three Judges.

The 'tamed Judges in the said decision read initiation of the Scheme under ~ccti