Case: Amritsar Improvement Trust Etc Vs. Baldeva Inder Singh And Ors. Etc

2. The Amritsar Improvement Trust at its meeting held on April 19, 1962 resolved as follows:The Trust resolved to frame a development-cum-housing accommodation scheme for the area bounded by Circular Road, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Gumtala Drain, Bye-pass Road and Ajnala Road u/ss. 24 and 25 read with Section 28 (2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Area will be developed as a commercial-cum-residential area and an industrial Colony will also be provided. Sites will be ear-marked for the construction of houses for service-men and also for labour and Harijan colonies. The scheme should now be notified under S. 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, for inviting objections,"3. That resolution was amended by the Improvement Trust at its meeting held on May, 1, 1962. The amendment reads thus:Reference Trust resolution No. 70 dated 19-4-1962It is decided to refix the boundaries of the Development scheme as under:"Circular Road, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Bye-pass Road and Ajnala Road."Resolution No. 70 dated 19-4-1962 be and is amended accordingly."4. Thereafter on May 4, 1962, it issued the following notice under Section 36 of the Act"The Amritsar Improvement Trust, AmritsarNotice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922Notice is hereby given that in accordance with Resolution No. 70, dated 19-4-1962, as amended by Resolution No. 92, dated 1-5-1962, passed by the Amritsar improvement Amritsar, the Trust has framed a development cum housing accommodation scheme for an area measuring approximately 860 acres, bounded by Circular road, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Bye-pass Road and Ajnala Road, within the local area of the Amritsar Improvement Trust, under Ss. 24 and 25 read with Section 28 (2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The area will be developed as commercial-cum-residential area and an industrial colony will also be provided. Sites will be ear-marked for the construction of colonies for service-men and also for labourers and Harijans. The boundaries of the scheme are as under:North: Starting from the junction of Ajnala road and Bye-pass Road along but excluding the land under Bye-pass road, upto its junction with Fatehgarh Churian Road;East: Thence by Fatehgarh Churian Road but excluding the land under this Road, upto its junction with Circular Road;South: Thence by Circular Road but excluding the land under the Circular Road, upto its junction with Ajnala Road;West. Thence by Ajnala Road but excluding the land under the Ajnala road, upto its junction with Bye-pass Road, the point of startThese boundaries are more particularly shown on a map of the locality held by the Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Amritsar2. Details of the Scheme and a statement of the land to be acquired and the general map of the locality comprised in the scheme may be inspected at the office of the Trust, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Amritsar, during office hours, on any working day3. Any person having any objection to the scheme should forward the same in writing to the undersigned so as to reach him on or before the 7th July, 1962Dated, 4th May, 19625. In response to that notice several interested persons submitted their objections. One of the objectors pleaded that the Improvement Trust had no competence to include in "a development scheme" areas outside the municipality. The Improvement Trust rejected all the objections and approved the prepared scheme. Thereafter the same was submitted to the Government and the Government sanctioned the same6. There is no dispute that the impugned scheme includes both areas inside the Amritsar municipality as well as areas outside that municipality. It is also seen from the resolutions passed by the Improvement Trust as well as the notice issued by it under Section 36 of Act that the Improvement Trust purported to frame "a development" cum "housing accommodation scheme". It did not purport to frame "an expansion scheme."7. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the Improvement Trust had no power to include in "a development scheme" areas outside the municipal limits for the purpose of development.

Reasoning: 12. It is clear from Section 24 (1) that "a development scheme" cannot include areas outside the municipal limits. Therefore if a scheme includes both areas outside municipal limits and inside its limits, such a scheme cannot be prepared under Sec. 24 (1).As seen earlier, from the resolutions of the Improvement Trust, it is clear that it purported to prepare "a development scheme" cum "housing accommodation scheme". It did not purport to prepare "an expansion scheme"13. The legislature has given specific names to the various schemes to be prepared by the Improvement Trust. Hence when the Improvement Trust says that it has prepared "a development scheme", it is not possible to hold that in fact it has prepared "an expansion scheme". The power conferred on the Improvement Trust is not a plenary power. It is a power that has to be exercised in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Act. If the Improvement Trust desired to prepare "an expansion scheme", it should have formed an opinion "that it is expedient and for the public advantage to promote and control the development of and to provide for the expansion of a municipally in a locality adjacent thereto within the local area of such trust."14. From the resolutions passed by the Improvement Trust, it does not appear that it had formed any such opinion. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that as the resolutions of the Improvement Trust refer to Section 24, we may conclude that the scheme prepared is "an expansion scheme". The resolutions of the Improvement Trust do not merely refer to Section 24. They also say that scheme prepared is "a development scheme" cum "housing scheme". If these resolutions are read as a whole, it is clear that the Improvement Trust purported to act under its power under Sections 24 (1) and 25 and not under Section 24 (2)16. The former case considered the validity of a transfer of an income-tax proceeding ordered by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab. He purported to make the order in question under Sections 5 (5) and 7 (A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 instead of making that order under Section 5 (5) of the Patiala Income-tax Act. Under both those provisions, he had similar powers. This Court held that once it is established that the Commissioner had power to transfer the proceeding, the fact that he purported to exercise that power under a wrong provision of law would not vitiate his order. The exercise of that power would be referable to a jurisdiction which conferred validity upon it and not to a jurisdiction under which it would be nugatory18. The legal principle enunciated in those decisions is a well established principle. If an authority has a valid power to do a particular act, the fact that it purported to do that act under a provision of law which did not confer power to do that act, would not invalidate the Act. But that rule is inapplicable to the facts of the present case19. Before taking action under Section 24 (2), the Improvement Trust had to form a particular opinion. The formation of that opinion is a condition precedent. Until the Improvement Trust forms that opinion, it is incompetent to take action under that section. The Act has not conferred any blanket power on the Improvement Trust, to frame any scheme which it thought fit. That being so, it is not possible to uphold the contention of the appellants that the impugned scheme can be traced to a valid power20. There is yet another difficulty in the way of the appellants. The schemes framed by Improvement Trust do not come into force automatically. They have to be sanctioned by the Government. The Government may accept them. It may reject them. It may amend them and it may even send them back to the Improvement Trust for reconsideration. Hence, it is necessary for the Government to know before sanctioning the scheme as to what the scheme is, so that it may examine whether that scheme is necessary or feasible. Unless the Government is informed as to the nature of the scheme, it would not be possible for the Government to consider whether the scheme should be sanctioned or not. In the present case, the Government was informed that the scheme in question was "a development cum housing accommodation scheme". It has approved that scheme. We do not know whether it would have sanctioned "an expansion scheme"Even if we accept that contention that does not alter the legal position. We should not mix up the facts of this case with the scope of the relevant provisions in the Act. We cannot confine our attention to the facts of a particular case. Our conclusion that the power conferred on the Improvement Trust is a limited power is reached on the basis of the nature of the power conferred and not on the basis of the facts of this case. The fact that the government is prepared to bless a particular scheme does not change the nature of the powerThey cannot be taken over for "a developmentscheme".There is force in this contention.