KHADIM HUSSAIN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

KHADIM HUSSAIN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

Technical irregularities such as delayed notification under s. 8 of the 1919 Act, or change in scheme name, do not invalidate acts of the constituted Trust or continuity of the scheme, as long as substantive requirements and continuity are satisfied and no substantial injustice is shown. The appellant failed to prove that no timely declaration under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act occurred; hence, the acquisition and scheme remain valid.

Parties
Appellant: Khadim Hussain; Respondents: State of U.P. & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment Dated 9 10 1972 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2830 of 1970
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Town Improvement Trust Validity, Continuance of Housing Scheme After Repeal, Validity of Acquisition Notifications
Administrative Law Land Acquisition Urban Development Town Improvement Trust Validity Continuance of Housing Scheme After Repeal Validity of Acquisition Notifications

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khadim Hussain

Appellant

State of U.P. & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment Dated 9 10 1972 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2830 of 1970

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absence of notification under s. 8 of U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 invalidated Trust constitution and proceedings
  2. 2 Whether scheme sanctioned under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1966 was same as initially notified under the 1919 Act and could be continued under s. 97
  3. 3 Whether notification under s. 32(1) of 1966 Act equated to s. 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invalid due to delay beyond statutory two years per 1967 Amendment

Ratio Decidendi

Technical irregularities such as delayed notification under s. 8 of the 1919 Act, or change in scheme name, do not invalidate acts of the constituted Trust or continuity of the scheme, as long as substantive requirements and continuity are satisfied and no substantial injustice is shown. The appellant failed to prove that no timely declaration under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act occurred; hence, the acquisition and scheme remain valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs