# AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST ETC v. BALD EV A INDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 386
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-11-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals No. 1418. 1419 and 1662 of 1968
- **Bench:** K. ~· Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/amritsar-improvement-trust-etc-v-bald-ev-a-inder-singh-and-ors-etc-5661
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

B
Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922-Scheme prepared by Amritsar
Improvement Trust under ss. 24, 25 & 28 of Act and sanctioned by Government under s. 41-Scheme purporti"ng to be 'developrnent scheme' and
'housing accommodation
scheme'
inciud~ng areas
outside 1nunicipal
lirniis--Scheme· was invalid since it was an expansio1t Slhe1ne-Acceptance
by Government did not make scheme valid-Being v;.e and indivisible
scheme must be struck down as a whole.
c
The Amritsar Improvement Trust by its resolution
dated April
19,
1962 framed a development-cum-housing accommodation scheme
under
s;. 24, 25 and 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922. After
notice was issued under s. 36 of the Act several objections were received.
The objections were rejected by the Improvement 1 rust.
)'hereafter the
scheme was submitted to the government and sanctioned by it under s. 41.
The High Court in writ petitions filed before it challenging the scheme
held that the Imprm·ement Trust had no power to rnclude in a 'development scheme' areas outside the municipality for the purpose of development.
In appeals to this Court against the judgment of the 'High Court,
HELD :
(i) The legislature has given specific names to the schemes
to be prepared by the Improvement Trust. Hence when the Improvement
ftwt 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 wanted to prepare 'an expansion
scheme' it should have formed an opinion in the terms o[ s. 24(2) "that it
is expedient and for the public advantage to promote and control the deve-
!lopment of and to provide for the expansion of a municipality in a locality
adjacent thereto within the local area of such trust". [391 HJ
From the resolutions passed by the Improvement Trust it did not
appear that it had formed any such opinion.
Undt!r these circumstances
it was not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that as the
resolutions of the Improvement Trust refer to s. 24 it could be concluded
that the scheme prepared was 'an expansion scheme'. · The resolutions of
D
F
the Improvement Trust did not merely refer to s. 24.
They also said that
G
the scheme pr,epared was 'a development scheme' cun1 'housing scheme'.
li these resolutions were rt:ad as a whole it was clear thac the Improvement Trust purported to Act under its nower under o. 24(!) which-dealt
with 'developincnt scheme' anc. s. !5 wnich dealt with 'hoL1sing acco1nmodation scheme' and not under s. 24(2). [392 B-C]
,
(ii) It is a well established principle that if an aulho;itv has a valid
power to do a pa_rticular act. the fact that it purported to do that act under
H
a vrovision of law which did not confer power to do that act, would not
invalidate that act.
But that rule was inapplicable to the facts of this
particular case. [393 BJ
c
D
E
F
G
IMPROVEMENT TRllSI V. INDER SINGH (Hegde, ],)
387
Before taking action under s. 24(2), the Improvement Trust had to
form a particular opinion. The formation ot that opinion was a condition precedent. Until the lmpro,-ement Trust forms that opinion it is
incompetent to take action under that section. The Act has not oonferred
anv blanket power on the Improvement Trust. to frame any scheme which
it thought fit. That being so it was not possible to uμhoid the contention
of the appellants that the impugned· scheme could be traced to a valid
power. [393 C-D]
L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. lnco1ne-tax Officer. 5pc.:ial l'ircle A1nhala
Ca11tt. and Anr., 41 l.T.R. 12 and Hukumchand Mil.< Ltd. v. Srate of
\fadhya Pradesh & Arn'., 52 I. T.R. 583, distinguished.
(iii) The schemes framed by the Improvement Trusts do not come
iuto force automatically. They have to be sanctioneJ by the Government.
Hence it is necessary for the government to know before sanctioning t

## Text

386
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST ETC.
A
v.
BALD EV A INDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC.
November 17, 1971
[K. ~· HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
B
Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922-Scheme prepared by Amritsar
Improvement Trust under ss. 24, 25 & 28 of Act and sanctioned by Government under s. 41-Scheme purporti"ng to be 'developrnent scheme' and
'housing accommodation
scheme'
inciud~ng areas
outside 1nunicipal
lirniis--Scheme· was invalid since it was an expansio1t Slhe1ne-Acceptance
by Government did not make scheme valid-Being v;.e and indivisible
scheme must be struck down as a whole.
c
The Amritsar Improvement Trust by its resolution
dated April
19,
1962 framed a development-cum-housing accommodation scheme
under
s;. 24, 25 and 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922. After
notice was issued under s. 36 of the Act several objections were received.
The objections were rejected by the Improvement 1 rust.
)'hereafter the
scheme was submitted to the government and sanctioned by it under s. 41.
The High Court in writ petitions filed before it challenging the scheme
held that the Imprm·ement Trust had no power to rnclude in a 'development scheme' areas outside the municipality for the purpose of development.
In appeals to this Court against the judgment of the 'High Court,
HELD :
(i) The legislature has given specific names to the schemes
to be prepared by the Improvement Trust. Hence when the Improvement
ftwt 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 wanted to prepare 'an expansion
scheme' it should have formed an opinion in the terms o[ s. 24(2) "that it
is expedient and for the public advantage to promote and control the deve-
!lopment of and to provide for the expansion of a municipality in a locality
adjacent thereto within the local area of such trust". [391 HJ
From the resolutions passed by the Improvement Trust it did not
appear that it had formed any such opinion.
Undt!r these circumstances
it was not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that as the
resolutions of the Improvement Trust refer to s. 24 it could be concluded
that the scheme prepared was 'an expansion scheme'. · The resolutions of
D
F
the Improvement Trust did not merely refer to s. 24.
They also said that
G
the scheme pr,epared was 'a development scheme' cun1 'housing scheme'.
li these resolutions were rt:ad as a whole it was clear thac the Improvement Trust purported to Act under its nower under o. 24(!) which-dealt
with 'developincnt scheme' anc. s. !5 wnich dealt with 'hoL1sing acco1nmodation scheme' and not under s. 24(2). [392 B-C]
,
(ii) It is a well established principle that if an aulho;itv has a valid
power to do a pa_rticular act. the fact that it purported to do that act under
H
a vrovision of law which did not confer power to do that act, would not
invalidate that act.
But that rule was inapplicable to the facts of this
particular case. [393 BJ
c
D
E
F
G
IMPROVEMENT TRllSI V. INDER SINGH (Hegde, ],)
387
Before taking action under s. 24(2), the Improvement Trust had to
form a particular opinion. The formation ot that opinion was a condition precedent. Until the lmpro,-ement Trust forms that opinion it is
incompetent to take action under that section. The Act has not oonferred
anv blanket power on the Improvement Trust. to frame any scheme which
it thought fit. That being so it was not possible to uμhoid the contention
of the appellants that the impugned· scheme could be traced to a valid
power. [393 C-D]
L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. lnco1ne-tax Officer. 5pc.:ial l'ircle A1nhala
Ca11tt. and Anr., 41 l.T.R. 12 and Hukumchand Mil.< Ltd. v. Srate of
\fadhya Pradesh & Arn'., 52 I. T.R. 583, distinguished.
(iii) The schemes framed by the Improvement Trusts do not come
iuto force automatically. They have to be sanctioneJ by the Government.
Hence it is necessary for the government to know before sanctioning the scheme as to what the scheme is, so that it nJav·~an1ine whether
that scben1c is necessary or feasible.
In the present case the government
was informed that the scheme in question was 'a deYelopment-cum-housing
•tcommodation scheme'. It appro,·eJ the scheme. It cannot be said
whether it v.:ould have sanctioned
•an
expansion
.r..clu::1nc•.
The mere
acceptance of the scheme by the Government did not alter the legal
position. [393 E-F]
(iv) Tho scheme was one and indivisible. It was not possible to hold
that it was partly valid and partly invalid. It had to stand or fall a. a
whole. [394 A-BJ
The appeals must accordinglv be dis1nissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals No. 1418.
1419 and 1662 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated July 29, 1966
and January 3, 1966 of he Punjab High Court in Civil Writ Nos.
2052 and 2053 of 1965.
S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the appellant (in C.As.Nos. 1418 and 1419 of 198).
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant (in C.A.
No. 1662 of 1968).
Bishan Narain, 0. P. Sharma, B. Datta, and /. B. Dadacha11i.
for respondents Nos. I to 5 (in C.As. Nos. 1418 nd
!662 of
1968).
Frank Anthony and E. C. Agrmrn/a, for respondent No.
C.A. No. 1419 of 1968).
( in
The Judgment of the Court was delivered
Hegde, J.
In these appeals by certificates, just one question
H
of law arises for decision and that question is whether the scheme
prepared by the Amritsar Improvement Trust und.~r ss. 24, 25 and
k8 and sanctioned by the government under s. 41 of the Punjab
Town Improvement Act 1922 (to be hereinafter called the Act)
3.88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972) 2 S.C.R.
is an invalid scheme.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana
ha& held in two writ petitions that the scheme in question is an
U.valid scheme and has consequently set aside that scheme. Agpieved by those. decisions, the Amritsar Improvement Trust as
well 118' ilie State government of Punjab have come up in appeal.
A
The Amritsar Improvement Trust at its meeting held on April
B
P!t, 1962 resolved as follows :
"70:
Item
Fm' consideration. Framing of a development~um
housing accommodation scheme for the area· bounded
b:ir Circular Road, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Gumtala
c
Drain, Bye-uass Road and Ajnala Road.
RESQLUTION
The Trust resolved to frame a development-cumliousing accommodation scheme for hie area bounded by
€ircufar Road,
Fatehgarh Churian
Road, Gumtala
Jmiain, Bye-pass Road and Ajnala Road uis 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 services men and also for
fabour and harijan colonies. The scheme should now be
notified under s. 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement
Act, 1922. for inviting objections."
'.llhat resolu1.\on was amended by the Improvement Trust at
i~iueting: held 011 May 1, 1962. The amendment reads thus :
"92'
Item.
Reference Trust Resolution No. 70 dated 19-4-1962.
For consideration.
Re-fixation of boundaries of
Dev. Scheme for tile area bounded by Circular Road,
Fatehgarh Churian Road, Gumtala
Drain, Bye.pass
Road and: Ajnala Road.
RESOLUTIQN
It is decided to refix· the boundaries of the Development scheme as- under :
D
E
F
G
"Circular Road, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Bye-pass
Road and Ajnala Road."
H
Resolution No. 70 dated 19-4-1962 be and is amended' accordin~y;''
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. JNDER SINGH (Hegde, J.)
389
Thereafter on May 4, 1962, it issued! the following notice
under s. 36 of the Act.
"The Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar.
Notice under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.
Notice 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 acers, bounded by Circular Road, Fatehgarh Churian Road, By-pass Road
and Ajnala Road, within the local area of the Amritsar
Improvement Trust, under section 24 and 25 read with
section 28(2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act,
1922. The area will be developed as Commercial-cumresidential 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 lan!l under this Road, upto its junction with
Circular Road;
SOUTH.-Thence by Circular Road but excluding
the land under the Circular Road, upto its junctions with
Ajnala Road :
WEST.-Thence by Ajnala Road but excluding the
land under the Ajnala Road, upto its junction with Byepass Road, the point of start.
These boundaries are more particularly shown on a map of
the locality held by die Chainnan of the Improvement . Trust,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Amritsar.
2. Details of the Scheme and a statement of the land to be
H
acquired and the general map of the locality comprised in the
sc~eme may be inspected at the office of the . Tru~ Shaheed
Bliagat Singh Road, Amritsar, during oftice hours, on a~y working
day.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ l 972 j 2 S.C.R.
3. 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. 1962.
Dated, 4th May, 1962.
A
Sdl- Shashpal Singh,
B
Chairman,
Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar.
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 same.
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 s.
36 of the Act that the Improvement Trust purported to frame "a
development" cum "housing accommodation scheme". It did not
purport to frame "an expansion scheme''.
The High Court has come to the- ~onclusion that the Improvement Trust had no power ito include in "a development scheme"
areas outside the municipal limits for the purpose of development.
c
D
E
From the resolutions passed by the Improvement Trust,
in
particular the resolution passed by it on May l, 1962, it is seen
F
that thei areas bounded by "Circular Road, Fatehgarh Churian
Road, Bye-pass· Road and Ajna!a Road" were included for the
purpose of development. It is conceded that the area included
within those boundaries partly lies within the municipal limits
and partly outside the municipal limits. It is urged on behalf of
the writ petitioners that the areas outside the municipal limits can
G
be taken over either under "an expansion scheme" or under "a
housing accommodation scheme". They cannot be taken over for
"a development scheme". There is force in this contention.
Let us now read the relevant provisions.
Section 24 of the
Act provides :
"(1) The trust may, for the purpose of development
of any locality within the municipal limits contained in
its local area, prepare "a development scheme", and
ll
c
D
G
H
IM l'RO\'EMENT TRUST v. JN DER SINGH ( Hegdc, J.)
3 91
(2) Such trust may, if it is of 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 municipality in any locality adjacent thereto.
within the local ~rca of such trust prepare "an expansion
scheme".
(3) "A development
scheme" or "an
expansion
scheme;' may provide for the lay-out of the locality to
be developed, the purposes for which particular. portions
of such locality are to be utilised, the prescribed street
alignment and the building line on each side of the streets
proposed in such locality, -the drainage of insanitary
localities and such other details as may appear desirable."
Section
24(1) deals with
preparation of "a development
scheme". Section 24(2) deal; with the preparation of "an expansion scheme". Section 24(3) pre.scribes what all things could be
included in "a development scheme" or "an expansion scheme".
Section 25 reads thus :
"If the trust is of opinion that it is expedient and for
the public advantage to provide housing accommodation
for any class of the inhabitants within its local area such
trust may. frame "a housing accommodation scheme" for
the purpose aforesaid ...... "
(Proviso omitted).
Section 28( 1) provides that the scheme under Ihe Act may
combine one or more Iypes of schem•J or any special
featur~<
thereof.
It is clear from s. 24(1) that "a development scheme" cannot
include areas outside the municipal limits. Therefore if a scheme
includes hoth areas outside municiMl limits and inside its limits.
such a scheme cannot be prepared under s. 24(1 ).
As seen earlier. from the resolutions of the Tmnrovement Trust. it is clear
that it purported to prepare "a development scheme" cum "housing
accommodation scheme''
It did not purport to prepare
"~x
pansion scheme"
The legislature has given specific nallles 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 po"Cer 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",
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
it should have formed an opinion "that it is expedient and for the
public advantage to promote and control the development of wid
to provide for the expansion of a municipality in a locality adjacent
thereto within the local area of such trust".
From the resolutions passed by the Improvement Trust, it
does not appear thaL It nad ro1med any such opinion. Under these
circumstances, it is no~ possible to accept toe ~ontcnuun of the
appellants that as the resolutions of the Improvement Trust refer
to s. 24, we may conclude that the scheme prepared is "an expansion scheme". The resolutions of th~ Improvement Trust do not
merely refer to s. 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 s.' 24(1) and 25 and not under
s. 24(2).
It iw.as llf~ on behalf of the appellants that if the exercise of
a p<;>we;r ~an be traced to a valid power, .the fact that the power is
purported to have been exercised under non-existing power, does
nof invalidate the exercise of that power· In that connection reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in L. Hazari Mal
/(uthiala v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle Ambala Gantt. a~d
anr.( 1) and Huk.umchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
an.d anr.(").
The former .case considered the validity of a transfer of an
income-tax proceeding ordered by the· Commissioner of Incometax, Punjab. ·He purported to make the order in question under
s. 5(5) and 7(A) of the Indi.a.n Income-tax Act, 1922 instead of
making that orqer under s. 5(5) -O'f the Patiala Income-tax .Act.
Un~r both tl).ose provisions, he had sinJilar powers. This Court
help th.at once jt is established -t,hat the Commissioner' had power
to transfer the proc~ing, the fact that he purported to exercise
t'1at power under a wrong provision of Jaw 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
un.!fer w/li~h jt wo1Jld be l)ugatory.
Jn Hukumchand Mills .case{') this Co1Jrt again ruled that
it ~ well established t/1,at wrong referenc!l to the power under which
action was tl)ken bY tb.e Jiovemmero would not per se vitiate that
action if it could be i!Js!iJjed under some other power under which
the government could lawfully qo that act : and therefore, even
though the notification dated December 28, 1949, by which amend-
. m.ents were made to (he Indore ll)dustri11l Tax Rules, 1927, w.as
(I) ;n.r.R. J2~
(2) 52 J.T.R. 583.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
IMPROVEMENT TRUST V. INDER SINGH (Hegde, /.)
393
purported liO be made under rule 17 of those rules, the amendments were valid because the government had power to make the
amendments under s. 5(1) and (3) of Act I of 1948. Failure to
refer to s. 5 did not invalidate the notification.
The legal principle enunciated in those decisions ii a well established principle· H 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 £-
validate the Act. But that rule is inapplicable to the facts of the
present case.
c
Before taking action under s. 24(2), the Improvement Trust
had to form a particular opinion. The form.atiq_n of iliat 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,
D
it is not possible to uphold the contention of the appellants that
the impugned scheme can be traced to a valid power.
There is yet another difficulty in the way of the appellants.
The schemes framed by Improvement Trusts do not come into
force automatically. They have to be sanctioned by the government· The governrnen. may accept them. It may reject them.
E
It may amend them and it may even send them back to the Improvement Trusts for reconsideration. Hence, it is necessary for
the government to know before sanctioning the scheme as to what
the scheme is, so tha•t 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
JI
to consider whether the scheme should be sanctioned or not. In
the present case, th~ 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".
G
Mr. V. C. Mahajan learned counsel for the State of Punjab
contends that the government must be presumed to have known the
true facts before sanctioning the scheme and the government has
no objection for the scheme in question. 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 pro~;sions
H 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 ls reached on the basis of
the nature of the power conferred and not on the basis of the facts
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
of this case. The fact that the government is prepared to bless a
particular scheme does not change the nature of the power.
The scheme before us is one and indivisible. It is not possible
to hold that it is partly valid and partly invalid. It has to stand
or fall as a whole.
For the reasons mentioned above, these appeals are dismissed
with costs-hearing fee one set.
G.C.
Appeals dismissed.
A
B