YOGENDRA PAL AND OTHERS versus MUNICIPALITY, BHATINDA AND ANR.

YOGENDRA PAL AND OTHERS versus MUNICIPALITY, BHATINDA AND ANR.

Sections 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and 203(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, by providing for compulsory transfer/acquisition of land without compensation for up to 25% of holding and with unguided discretion for additional 10%, violate Article 14 of the Constitution and are therefore void prospectively from the date of this judgment; however, being 'existing law', they were protected from challenge under Article 31(2) as it stood prior to 20.06.1979.

Parties
Appellants/petitioners: Yogendra Pal and Others; Respondents: Municipality, Bhatinda and Another; Respondent: Haryana Municipal Committee, Rohtak; Respondent: State Government of Punjab; Respondent: State Government of Haryana; Appellants: Appellants in C.A. No. 814-16/86
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 July 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals and Writ Petition / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and Writ Petition dismissed; impugned decision of High Court set aside; provisions declared void prospectively from date of judgment.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Town Planning Schemes, Compensation for Acquisition, Validity of Statutory Provisions, Prospective Overruling
Constitutional Law Municipal Law Property Law Compulsory Acquisition Town Planning Schemes Compensation for Acquisition Validity of Statutory Provisions Prospective Overruling

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yogendra Pal and Others

Appellants/petitioners

Municipality, Bhatinda and Another

Respondents

Haryana Municipal Committee, Rohtak

Respondent

State Government of Punjab

Respondent

State Government of Haryana

Respondent

Appellants in C.A. No. 814-16/86

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals and Writ Petition / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and Section 203(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, which provide for compulsory transfer of land without compensation up to 25% of holding and discretionary compensation up to 35%, are constitutionally valid.
  2. 2 Whether such compulsory transfers violate Article 14 and Articles 19(1)(f), 31 of the Constitution as they stood then.

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and 203(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, by providing for compulsory transfer/acquisition of land without compensation for up to 25% of holding and with unguided discretion for additional 10%, violate Article 14 of the Constitution and are therefore void prospectively from the date of this judgment; however, being 'existing law', they were protected from challenge under Article 31(2) as it stood prior to 20.06.1979.

Court Disposition

Appeal and Writ Petition dismissed; impugned decision of High Court set aside; provisions declared void prospectively from date of judgment.

Orders

  • Section 192(1)(c) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and Section 203(1)(c) of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 are void with effect from the date of this decision for being violative of Article 14.
  • Ex-gratia payment of Rs. 30,000 to appellants in C.A. No. 818 of 1986, and Rs. 5,000 to appellants in each of C.A. Nos. 814-16 of 1986, 2535 of 1981, and C.A. 3656 of 1987.