vil Appeal No 3 165 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 9890 of the Rajas than High Court in WP No 200990
VA Bobde and Mrs Rani Chhabra for the Appellant
504 Satish Kr
Jain and Mrs Pratibha Jain for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
Special leave granted
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 98
1990 dismissing the appellant s writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the scheme for nationalisation of the route in dispute
The appellant holds a Stage Carriage Permit for plying his vehicle on the Kota Khanpur route which overlaps a portion of the KotaSangod route
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur issued a Notification on 1110
1979 proposing a scheme under Section 68 C of the hereinafter referred to as the old Act  for the exclusive operation of the vehicles of the State Road Transport Corporation on the Kota Sangod route
The existing operators as well as the affected opera tors of the route filed their objections before the hearing authority appointed by the State Government of Rajasthan
The hearing authority after considering those objections approved the scheme under Section 68 D 2 of the old Act by its order dated 3011
1984 and submitted the papers to the State Government for the issue of Notification under Section 68 D 3
Before the State Government could issue Notifica tion under Section 68 1 3 of the old Act the appellant and other affected operators made representation to the Minister for Transport for affording them a fresh opportuni ty of hearing
As a result of which no final Notification under Section 68 D 3 could be issued
Meanwhile the hereinafter referred to as the new Act was enforced with effect from 17 1989 and the old Act was repealed
The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of Mandamus restraining the State Government from issuing the final Notification mainly on the ground that on the enforcement of the new Act the Notification dated 11
1979 issued under Section 68 C of the old Act had lapsed on account of delay in finalisation of the same
A similar writ petition had been filed earlier in respect of Kishangarh Sarwad route by one Sardar Mohd on similar grounds
A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed that writ petition holding that the draft scheme under the old Act was saved by the new Act and the same could legally be finalised under the provisions of the new Act
Sardar Mohd filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge
A 505 Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal of Sardar Mohd as well as the various writ petitions including that of the appellant by a common order dated 98
1990 impugned in the present appeal
After the impugned judgment of the High Court the State Government approved the Scheme as proposed under 68 C of the old Act
Final notification approving this Scheme was pub lished in the Official Gazette on 2981990 us 1003 of the new Act as a result of which the Kota Sangod route has become a notified route consequently the appellant has no right to ply his vehicle on the overlapping portion of that route
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that since there was undue delay of 11 years in issuing the final Notifica tion the scheme as proposed under Section 68 C of the old Act should be deemed to have lapsed and the State Government had no authority or jurisdiction to finalise the same or to issue Notification under Section 1003 of the new Act
He placed reliance on a number of decisions of this Court in support of his contention that unreasonable delay in fina lising a scheme proposed under Section 68 C of the old Act rendered the same illegal
He referred to the decisions of this Court in Yogeshwar Jaiswal etc
vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal  Ors AIR 1985 SC 5 16 Onkar Singh  Ors
vs Regional Transport Authority Agra  Ors   Devki Nandan vs State of Rajasthan  Ors and Srichand vs Government of UP 1985 4 SCC 169
No doubt in these decisions the Court quashed the schemes proposed under Section 68 C of the old Act on the ground of inordinate delay for which there was no valid explanation
In the instant case the proposed scheme had been approved by the hearing authority under Section 68 D 2 of the old Act in 1984 within five years of the proposal of the scheme but when the matter was placed before the State Government for issue of final Notification Under Section 68 D 3 of the old Act the appellant and other affected operators approached the Minister for Transport and stalled the issue of final Notification as a result of which delay was caused
The appellant was himself responsible for the delay therefore he is not entitled to complain of the delay
Moreover this Court has not ruled in the aforesaid decisions or in any other decision that delay would auto matically render the scheme illegal
Since under the old Act no time frame was prescribed for finalising a scheme penal consequences could not ensue
Under the old Act a scheme proposed us 68 could continue to remain in force till it was quashed
Since the scheme proposed on 11101979 had not been 506 quashed by any Court the same continued to be in force on the date of commencement of the new Act
In the absence of any provision in the old Act rendering the scheme ineffec tive on the ground of delay the scheme proposed us 68 C of the old Act could not lapse ipso facto
Moreover now the State Government has already issued final Notification under Section 1003 of the new Act on 298
1990 as a result of which the route has been notified
In this view ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Court are not applicable to the instant case at this stage
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that under Section 1004 of the new Act if a draft scheme is not finalised and the final notification is not issued within one year from the date of the publication of the proposed scheme the same would lapse
Since in the instant case the draft scheme dated 11101979 was not finalised under Sec tion 1003 of the new Act the same had lapsed after one year from the date of the notification issued us 68 C of the old Act
In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the new Act
Chapter VI of the new Act contains special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings
Section 99 confers power on the State Government to propose a scheme for oper ating the vehicles of the State Transport Undertakings to the exclusion of other persons
The proposed scheme is published in the Gazette
Section 100 which provides for filing of the objections before the State Government and the issue of final notification is as under 100
Objection to the proposal 1 on the publication of any proposal regard ing a scheme in the Official Gazette and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route which is to be covered by such proposal any person may within thirty days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette file objections to it before the State Govern ment
2 The State Government may after consider ing the objections and after giving an oppor tunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard in the matter if they so desire approve or modify such proposal
3 The scheme relating to the proposal as approved or 507 modified under sub section 2 shall be pub lished in the Official Gazette by the State Government making such scheme and in not less than one newspaper in the regional language circulating in the area or route covered by such scheme and the same shall thereupon become final on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route Provided that no such scheme which relates to any interState route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has the previous approval of the Central Government
4 Notwithstanding anything contained in this section where a scheme is not published as an approved scheme under sub section 3 in the Official Gazette within a period of one year from the date of publication of the proposal regarding the scheme in the Official Gazette under sub section 1 the proposal shall be deemed to have lapsed
Section 100 provides for filing of objections before the State Government within 30 days from the date of the publi cation of the proposed scheme in the Official Gazette
Under sub section 2 the State Government may approve or modify the proposed scheme after considering the objections and hearing the objectors
Under sub section 3 the State Government is required to publish the approved scheme in the Official Gazette and also in one newspaper
On the publica tion of the approved scheme in the Official Gazette the area or route to which it relates shall be called the noti fied area or notified route
Sub section 4 lays down that if a scheme is not published as an approved scheme in the Gazette within one year from the date of publication of the proposed scheme in the Official Gazette the proposed scheme shall be deemed to have lapsed
Sub section 4 in our opinion prescribes a period of limitation during which the State Government should hear and consider the objections of the objectors and finalise the scheme and publish the same in the Official Gazette and on its failure to do so with in that period penal consequences would ensue as a result of which the scheme itself shall stand lapsed
The object and purpose of Section 1004 is to avoid delay in finalising a scheme
The Parliament was aware that under the old Act schemes were not 508 finalised for long years as a result of which public inter est suffered therefore it prescribed a time frame for the approval and publication of schemes
The provisions of Section 100 are applicable to the schemes proposed under the new Act
The question is whether it would apply to a scheme proposed under Section 68 C of the old Act
The Legislature was conscious that a number of schemes proposed under the old Act were pending approval on the date of the commencement of the Act it therefore made a provision for saving those schemes by enacting Section 2 17 of the Act which is as under 217
Repeal and savings 1 The Motor Vehi cles Act 1939 4 of 1939 and any law corre sponding to that Act in force in any State immediately before the commencement of this Act in that State hereinafter in this Section referred to as the repealed enactments are hereby repealed
2 Notwithstanding the repeal by sub section 1 of the repealed enactments a any notification rule regula tion order or notice issued or any appoint ment or declaration made or exemption granted or any confiscation made or any penalty or fine imposed any forfeiture cancellation or any other thing done or any other action taken under the repealed enactments and in force immediately before such commencement shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act be deemed to have been issued made granted done or taken under the corresponding provision of this Act              e any scheme made under section 68 C of the 4 of 1939 or under the corresponding law if any in force in any State and pending immediately before the commencement of this Act shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 100 of this Act f the permits issued under sub section I A of section 68 F of the 4 of 1939 or under 509 the corresponding provisions if any in force in any State immediately before the commence ment of this Act shall continue to remain in force until the approved scheme under Chapter VI of this Act is published     
Under sub section 1 the old Act has been repealed but under subsection 2 inspite of repeal the Parliament has made provisions for saving the schemes proposed under Sec tion 68 C of the old Act
Clause e of Section 217 2 of the new Act provides that notwithstanding the repeal of the old Act a scheme proposed under Section 68 C of the old Act if pending immediately before the commencement of the Act shall be finalised in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 of the new Act
The Legislative intent is clear that the
schemes proposed under Section 68 C of the old Act pending on the date of the commencement of the new Act should not lapse instead those schemes should be finalised in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 of the new Act
The pending schemes were therefore saved and the same were to be finalised within one year as contemplated by Section 100 4 of the new Act
Section 100 4 lays down that if the proposed scheme is not finalised within one year from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette it shall be deemed to have lapsed but that applies to a scheme proposed under the new Act and not to a scheme proposed under Section 68 C of the old Act
If the period of one year from the date of the publication of the proposed scheme is applied to the pending schemes under Section 68 C of the old Act the purpose and object of saving the old schemes under Clause e of Section 2 17 2 of the new Act would be frustrated
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that since Section 172e provides for the finalisation of a pending scheme published under the old Act in accordance with the provi sions of Section 100 of the new Act the period of limita tion of one year prescribed under sub section 4 of that section would also apply
He further urged that since period of one year had already expired from the date of the publi cation of the scheme under Section 68 C of old Act the scheme automatically lapsed and the same could not be final ly published under Section 100 of the Act
If the appellant s contention is accepted the schemes published under Section 68 C of the old Act would lapse after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of the publication of the scheme in 510 the Official Gazette in accordance with the provisions of the old Act
On the other hand we find that Section 2 172e permits finalisation of a scheme published under Section 68 C of the old Act if the same was pending on the date of the commencement of the new Act
The old Act did
not provide any period of limitation consequently a number of schemes published under Section 68 C of the old Act were pending on the date of commencement of the new Act although a period of one year had already expired
If the Parliament intended to apply the limitation of period of one year to the pending schemes published under Section 68 C of the old Act the new Act could have made provisions to that effect
On the contrary Section 2172e has been enacted to save the schemes published under Section 68 C of the old Act which were pending on the date of the commencement of the Act with a further direction that the same shall be fina lised in accordance with Section 100 of the Act
Sub section 4 of Section 100 provides that where a scheme is not published as approved under sub section 3 within period of one year from the date of publication of the proposal in the Official Gazette under sub section 1 the proposal shall be deemed to have lapsed
A scheme published under Section 68 C of the old Act pending on the date of commencement of the Act could not be a scheme proposed under sub section 1 of Section 100 therefore the rigour of period of one year as applicable to a scheme proposed under sub section 1 of Section 100 could not apply to a scheme under Section 68 C pending on the date of commencement of the Act
It was not meant that a scheme us 68 C of the old Act pending on the date of commencement of the new Act may be approved or finalised with leisure without any time limit
There appears to be some apparent conflict between Section 1004 and Section 2172e of the Act
While Section 2172e permits finalisation of a scheme in ac cordance with Section 100 of the new Act sub section 4 of Section 100 lays down that a scheme if not finalised within a period of one year shall be deemed to have lapsed
If the appellant s contention is accepted then Section 2172e will become nugatory and no scheme published under Section 68 C of the old Act could be finalised under the new Act
On the other hand if the period of one year as prescribed under Section 1004 is not computed from the date of publication of the scheme under Section 68 C of the old Act and instead the period of one year is computed from the date of com mencement of the Act both the provisions could be given full effect
It is settled principle of interpretation that where there appears 511 to be inconsistency in two sections of the same Act the principle of harmonious construction should be followed in avoiding a head on clash
It should not be lightly assumed that what the Parliament has given with one hand it took away with the other
The provisions of one section of stat ute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to reconcile the same
In Venkataramana Devaru vs State of Mysore AIR 1958 SC 225 at p 268 this Court observed The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other they should be so interpreted that if possi ble effect should be given to both
This is what
is known as the rule of harmonious construction
 The essence of harmonious construction is to give effect to both the provisions
Bearing these principles in mind it is legitimate
to hold that Section 1004 prescribed period of limitation of one year in respect the scheme proposed under the provisions of the new Act while in they case of a scheme under Section 68 C of the old Act pending on the date of enforcement of the new Act namely 17 1989 the period one year as prescribed under Section 1004 should be computed from the date of commencement of the new Act
This interpretation would give full effect to both the Sections Section 1004 and Section 2 172e of the new Act
Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Santosh Kumar  Ors
vs Regional Transport Authority CMWP No 2 177389 decided on 16th March 1990
In that case a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that a draft scheme under Section 68 C of the old Act published in 1986 shall be deemed to have lapsed on the date of the enforce ment of the new Act in view of the absolute prohibition contained in Section 10043 of the new Act against the continuance of any scheme after one year
We have gone through the judgment of the Division Bench carefully but in our opinion the view taken by the High Court of Allahabad is unsustainable in law
The learned Judges constituting the Bench failed to notice the legislative intendment under Section 2174e of the new Act which kept alive the scheme published under Section 68 C of the old Act for the purposes of being finalised under the new Act
We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the view taken by the Allahabad High Court is incorrect
In the instant ease the appellant had filed a writ petition in May 512 1990 and obtained an interim order from the High Court restraining the State Government from publishing the final Notification under Section 1003 of the new Act
The State Government published the final notification under Section 1003 of the new Act on 298
1990 after the dismissal of the writ petition by the Division Bench of the High Court
The period of one year with regard to the pending scheme expired on 171990 but since the appellant had obtained stay order from the High Court the State Government could not publish final notification
Explanation to Section 1004 of the new Act lays down that in computing the period of one year any period during which the publication of the approved scheme under Section 100 is held up on account of any stay or order of any court shall be excluded
On the application of the Explanation the period during which the appellant had obtained stay order against the State Govern ment is liable to be excluded in computing the period of one year
Admittedly in the instant case stay order passed by the High Court remained in force from May to 9th August 1990
On the exclusion of that period the final notification issued by the State Government under Section 1003 of the new Act on 2981990 was well within the prescribed period
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the High Court rightly dismissed the appellant s writ petition
The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs
VPR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 a notification was issued by the petitioners proposing to acquire the land of the respondents for construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board constituted under section 3 of the Madras State Housing Board Act 1961
The respondents challenged the impugned notification in a writ petition which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court holding that the public purpose mentioned in the notification was too vague in absence of details relat ing to the scheme for which the acquisition was sought to be made and consequently the land owners could not effectively avail of the benefits under section 5A of the Land Acquisi tion Act by filing objection
This order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court
The State the petitioners filed this Special Leave Petition contending that the notification had adequately described the nature of the public purpose by mentioning the proposed construction of residential buildings and the respondents ought to have filed their objections under section 5 A instead of filing the writ petition that the procedure in regard to the preparation of the scheme has to await the conclusion of the land acquisition proceeding that the land acquisition proceeding should not be condemned as pre mature on the ground that the scheme has not been framed
The respondents contended that in view of the provi sions of the Housing Board Act a proceeding for land acqui sition can be commenced only after a scheme under the Act is framed which has not been done in the present case
The land acquisition proceeding being pre mature has been rightly quashed
376 On the question whether the acquisition proceeding could De initiated only after the framing of the proposed scheme and not earlier dismissing the Special Leave Peti tion of the State this Court HELD 101
The procedure prescribed for preparation of a scheme indicates that before it can be finalised full publicity has to be given inviting objections and in case of objections the same have to be duly considered before granting sanction
Further if anybody is still aggrieved he has a right of appeal to the State Government
It is only after this stage is over that the scheme becomes final and enforceable
378F 102
Section 39 of the Madras State Housing Act 1961 while enumerating the matters to be included in the scheme specifically mentions acquisition of land in clause a
If the acquisition is contemplated as a subject matter of the scheme itself it follows that it must await the preparation of the scheme wherein it will be included
379F 103
The acquisition of the land is a part of the execution of the scheme itself
Since the acquisition is included in the scheme the process of execution of the scheme starts immediately when steps for acquisition are taken
381A B 104
If the notification under section 4 under the Land Acquisition Act is published without waiting for the scheme it will not be possible for the land owners to object to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the land is not suitable for the scheme at all and therefore does not serve any public purpose or that another piece of land in the area concerned is far more suitable leading to the possi ble conclusion that the proposed acquisition is mala fide
The provisions of the Housing Board Act also suggest the same
381 DF 105
It will be practical and consistent with common sense to have the scheme finalised before starting an acqui sition proceeding
A proceeding  under the Land Acquisition Act read with section 70 of the Madras Housing Board Act can be commenced only after framing the scheme for which the land is required
The notification issued under section 4 hi the present case must therefore be held to be pre mature and it was rightly quashed by the High Court
381G 382A 106
Although the initiation of the proceeding for acquisition has to await framing of a scheme it does not mean that the concluded acquisition proceeding can be con demned as void so as to be ignored 377 later
A ground based on the present judgment shall be available to the land owners only for such land acquisition proceedings which are under challenge and are still pending decision
382C D Babu Barkya Thakur vs The State of Bombay and Others  distinguished