{"id":260166,"date":"1972-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972"},"modified":"2018-06-14T02:37:23","modified_gmt":"2018-06-13T21:07:23","slug":"nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972","title":{"rendered":"Nagpur Improvement Trust And … vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nagpur Improvement Trust And … vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 689, 1973 SCR (3)\t 39<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Ray, A.N., Palekar, D.G. & Beg, M. Hameedullah, Dwivedi, S.N. & Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVITHAL RAO AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/12\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nSHELAT, J.M.\nRAY, A.N.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nDUA, I.D.\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  689\t\t  1973 SCR  (3)\t 39\n 1973 SCC  (1) 500\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1973 SC 696\t (1,9)\n F\t    1973 SC1383\t (1,12)\n RF\t    1973 SC1461\t (1202)\n F\t    1974 SC1202\t (12,13,15)\n RF\t    1980 SC1438\t (18)\n D\t    1986 SC 468\t (34)\n D\t    1989 SC1796\t (6,7,8,9,11)\n\n\nACT:\nNagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 and Land Requisition\t Act\n1894 Different terms of compensation for land acquired under\nthe  two Acts-Where Government could acquire land under\t one\nAct  or\t the other at its choice  there\t was  discrimination\nviolative  of Art. 14<\/a> of Constitution-There can be no  valid\nclassification as to payment of compensation with  reference\nto purpose for which land is acquired or of, Act under which\nit is acquired.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner\t was tenant of some fields in a\t village  in\nPatwari\t  Circle  10,  Nagpur.\t He  had  applied   to\t the\nAgricultural Lands Tribunal under a local Act for fixing the\npurchase price of the said fields.  The land in question was\nhowever\t acquired  under the Nagpur Improvement\t Trust\tAct;\n1936.\tDissatisfied  with  the\t compensation  awarded\t the\npetitioner  filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of\t the\nConstitution.\t In  this  petition  the  validity  of\t the\nImprovement  Act<\/a> was challenged on various grounds,  one  of\nthe grounds being that the Improvement Act<\/a> was in  violation\nof Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution inasmuch as it empowered\t the\nacquisition of lands at prices lower than those which  would\nhave  been payable if they had been acquired under the\tLand\nAcquisition  Act<\/a> 1894.\tThe High Court allowed the  petition\nand  set aside the award.  Appeal in this Court against\t the\nHigh Court's judgment was filed with certificate.\nDismissing the appeal.\nHELD  : The effect of the modifications made by\t Improvement\nAct<\/a>  in\t the  Land  Acquisition\t Act<\/a>  in  two  respects\t  is\ntremendous.   First the owner where land is  acquired  under\nthe  Improvement Act<\/a> is paid compensation not  according  to\nthe market value of the I and but the market value according\nto  the\t use  to which the land was put\t at  the  date\twith\nreference  to which the market value is to be determined  in\nthat clause.  In other words, if the land is being used\t for\nagricultural  purposes even though it has a potential  value\nas  a building site, the potential value is to\tbe  ignored.\nThe second respect in which the owner suffers if the land is\nacquired under the Improvement Act<\/a> is that he does not get a\nsolatium of 15% which he would have got if the land had been\nacquired under the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>.  It is true that be\nhas  some  minor advantage but they have  no  comparison  in\nvalue  to  the loss suffered by virtue of the  market  value\nbeing determined according to the use to which the land\t was\nbeing  put  or the loss of 15% of the market  value  of\t the\nland. [146D]\nIt  is quite clear especially in View of s. 17A<\/a> as  inserted\nin the Land Acquisition Act<\/a> by para 6 of the Schedule to the\nImprovement  Act<\/a>,  that\t the  acquisition  will\t be  by\t the\nGovernment  and\t it  is\t only on  payment  of  the  cost  of\nacquisition  by\t the Government that the  land-vest  in\t the\nTrust.\t It  is true that the acquisition is for  the  Trust\nand   may  be  at  its\tinstance,  but\t nevertheless\tthe\nacquisition is by the Government.  If this is so, it enables\nthe  State  Government to discriminate\tbetween\t one  owne'r\nequally situated from another owner. [45G]\n40\nIt is now well-settled that the State can make a  reasonable\nclassification\tfor the purpose of the legislation  provided\nit  is based on intelligible differentia having\t a  rational\nrelation  with\tthe  object sought to  be  achieved  by\t the\nlegislation in question. In this connection it must be\thome\nin mind that the object itself should be lawful. [47D]\nThe  legislature cannot lay down different principles  of  _\ncompensation  for  lands acquired say for a  hospital  or  a\nschool\tor  a  Government building.  An\t three\tobjects\t are\npublic purposes and so far as the owner is concerned it does\nnot  matter to him whether it is one public purpose  or\t the\nother.\tArt. 14<\/a> confers an individual right and in order  to\njustify\t a  classification there should be  something  which\njustifies  a different treatment to this  individual  right.\nOrdinarily  a classification based on the public purpose  is\nnot permissible under Art. 14<\/a> for the purpose of determining\ncompensation. [48A]\nSimilarly different principles cannot be laid if the land is\nacquired  for  or  by  an  Improvement\tTrust  or  Municipal\nCorporation  or\t Government because so far as the  owner  is\nconcerned  it  does not matter to him whether  the  land  is\nacquired by one authority or the other. [48D]\nIt  is equally immaterial whether it is one Acquisition\t Act<\/a>\nor another Acquisition Act<\/a> under which the land is acquired;\nif  the existence of two Acts enables the State to give\t one\nowner different treatment from another ,equally situated the\nowner who is discriminated against can claim the  protection\nof Art. 14.<\/a> [48E]\nTO  accede  to\tthe  contention of  the\t appellant  and\t the\nintervening  states would be destructive of  the  protection\nafforded  by Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution.  The States  would\nonly  have to constitute separate acquiring bodies for\teach\ncity,  or Division or indeed to achieve one  special  public\npurpose\t and lay down different principles of  compensation.\n[49D]\nNandeshwar  Prasad v. U.P. Govt., A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1217,  P.\nVairavelu  mudaliar  v. Special\t Deputy\t Collector,  Madras,\n[1965]\t1 S.C.R. 614; 619 and Balammal & Ors. v. State\tof\nMadras<\/a>, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 90,\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2139 of 1968.
\nAppeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated July
\n16,  17, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 504  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
V.   M.\t Tarkunde, Y. R. Dandige and A. G. Ratnaparkhi,\t for
\nappellant No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
S.   V.\t Natu, K. K. Khamberker, P. Kesava Pillai and M.  R.
\nK. Pillai, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
B.   D. Sharma, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
Y.   S. Dharinadhjkari, Advocate-General, Madhya Pradesh and\n<\/p>\n
1.   N.\t  Shroff,   for\t Advocate-General   Madhya   Pradesh
\n(InterVener)
\nO. P, Rana, for Advocate-General U.P. (Intervener).\n<\/p>\n
41<\/span><\/p>\n
D.   Goburdhan, for Advocate-General, Bihar (Intervener).
\nA.   V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for Advocate-General,
\nTamil Nadu (Intervener).\n<\/p>\n
K.   M. Nair, for Advocate-General, Kerala (Intervener).
\nO.   N. Tikku and Vineet Kumar, for AdvocateGeneral, J. & K.
\n(Intervener).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSikri, C.J. This appeal by certificate of fitness granted by
\nthe  High  Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur  Bench,  is
\ndirected  against  the Judgment of the High  Court  in\tWrit
\nPetition  No. 504 of 1967 filed under arts. 226 and  227  of
\nthe  Constitution,  by\tVithal\tRao,  respondent  *fore\t us,
\nhereinafter referred to as the petitioner.
\nThe  petitioner\t was  a tenant of  some\t fields\t in  village
\nBinakhi in Petwari Circle No. 10, Nagpur.  He had applied to
\nthe Agricultural Lands Tribunal under a local act for fixing
\nthe  purchase price of the said fields.\t On May 3,  1962,  a
\nnotice\twas  issued under s. 39 of  the\t Nagpur\t Improvement
\nTrust  Act, 1936-hereinafter referred to as the\t Improvement
\nAct<\/a>.   Section\t39<\/a> of this Act deals with  the\tpreparation,
\npublication  and  transmission of notice as  to\t improvement
\nschemes and supply of documents to applicants.
\nOn  November  17,  1961 the Improvement\t Trust\tapplied\t for
\nsanction of its scheme by the Government, and on January  9,
\n1965,  the Government sanctioned the scheme under s.  45<\/a>  of
\nthe Improvement Act.  On February 28, 1966 proceedings\twere
\nstarted before the Land Acquisition Officer and on June\t 12,
\n1967  an  award was passed by the Land\tAcquisition  Officer
\nfixing\tthe compensation at Rs. 45,910\/- for 44.19 acres  of
\nland acquired.\n<\/p>\n
On  June,  15, 1967 the petitioner filed the  writ  petition
\nunder  arts.  226  and 227 of  the  Constitution.   In\tthis
\npetition the validity of the Improvement Act<\/a> was  challenged
\non  various  grounds,  one of the  grounds  being  that\t the
\nImprovement  Act<\/a>  was  in  violation  of  Art.\t14<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution  inasmuch\tas it empowered the  acquisition  of
\nlands  at  prices  lower than those which  would  have\tbeen
\npayable if they had been acquired under the Land Acquisition
\nAct<\/a>, 1894.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court held that as the acquisition is by the  State
\nin  all cases where the property is required to be  acquired
\nfor  the purposes of a scheme framed by the Trust and  such
\nbeing the position, it is not permissible without  violating
\nthe  guarantee under Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution for\t the
\nState to acquire any property
\n42<\/span>
\nunder the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act<\/a> as  amended
\nby the Improvement Trust Act in so far as they relate to the
\nbasis  of  determination and payment  of  compensation.\t  It
\nmust,  therefore, be held that the provisions of  paragraphs
\n10(2)  and 10(3) in so far as they add a new Clause (3)\t (a)
\nto Section 23<\/a> and a proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 23<\/a>
\nof the Land Acquisition Act are ultra vires as violating the
\nguarantee of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution.
\nIn the result the petition was allowed, the award set aside,
\nand the matter was remanded to the Land Acquisition  Officer
\nfor  determination of compensation according to the law\t and
\nin the light of the decision by the High Court.
\nAs the case was important, the High Court granted a certifi-
\ncate under art. 1 3 2 ( 1 )<\/a> and art. 1 3 1 ( 1 ) (c)<\/a> of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
Before, we deal with the contentions of the learned  counsel
\nfor  the  appellant  we may  briefly  examine  the  relevant
\nprovisions of the Improvement Act<\/a>.  This Act<\/a> came into force
\non  December 25, 1936.\tIt was passed before the  Government
\nof India Act, 1935 came into force.  The Preamble states :
\n“Whereas  it  is  expedient to make provision  for  the\t im-
\nprovement and expansion of the Town of Nagpur in the  manner
\nhereinafter provided……”\n<\/p>\n
Section 3<\/a> of the Act creates the Nagpur Improvement Trust as
\na  body\t corporate.  Chapter IV of the Act  deals  with\t the
\nImprovement  schemes.  Section 26<\/a> provides for\tthe  matters
\nwhich may be included in an improvement scheme.\t One of the
\nmatters\t is  “the  acquisition\tby  purchase,  exchange,  or
\notherwise  of any property necessary for or affected by\t the
\nexecution of the scheme.” Section 27<\/a> describes various types
\nof improvement schemes.\t They are (a) a general\t improvement
\nscheme,\t (b) a re-building scheme; (c) a re-housing  scheme;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  a\tstreet scheme; (e) a deferred street  scheme  (f)  a
\ndevelopment, scheme; (g) a housing accommodation scheme; (h)
\na future expansion or improvement scheme and (i) a  drainage
\nor drainage including sewage disposal scheme.
\nThe  scheme in pursuance of which the lands in\tthe  present
\ncase  were  acquired  was a  housing  accommodation  scheme.
\nSection\t 3<\/a>,9<\/a>, as stated above, provides for the issue of  a
\nnotice\tafter  an  improvement\tscheme\thas  been,   framed.
\nUnders.\t 41, the Trust is obliged to serve a notice  of\t the
\nproposed acquisition of land on certain persons.  Section 43<\/a>
\nenables\t the  Improvement Trust to  abandon  an\t improvement
\nscheme\tafter considering any objection,  representation  or
\nstatement of dissent received and after hearing all persons,
\nor to apply to the State Government for sanction to
\n43;\n<\/p>\n
the scheme with such modifications, if any, as the Trust may
\nconsider  necessary.   The  decision would be  that  of\t the
\nImprovement Trust.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 44<\/a> gives wide powers to the Government to  sanction
\nwith  or without modification or to refuse a sanction or  to
\nreturn\tfor, consideration any improvement scheme  submitted
\nto  it\tunder s. 43<\/a>.  Under s. 45<\/a> the  State  Government  is
\nobliged\t to  notify the sanction of an\timprovement  scheme.
\nSection 46<\/a> enables the Trust to alter an improvement  scheme
\n‘before\t  it   has  been  completed,  subject\tto   certain
\nconditions.\n<\/p>\n
Chapter\t V  deals with the powers and duties  of  the  Trust
\nwhere  a scheme has been sanctioned.  Chapter VI deals\twith
\nacquisition and disposal of land.  Under s. 58<\/a> the Trust  is
\nenabled’ to acquire by purchase, lease or exchange any\tland
\nwithin\tthe area comprised in a sanctioned scheme.   Section
\n59<\/a> deals with, compulsory acquisition and may be set out  in
\nfull : It provides
\n“59 The Trust may, with the previous sanction of the,  State
\nGovernment,  acquire land under the provisions of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act<\/a>, 1894, as modified by the provisions of this
\nAct, for carrying out any of the purposes of this Act.”
\nSection\t 60<\/a> says that “a Tribunal shall be  constituted,  as
\nprovided  in section 62<\/a>, for the purpose of  performing\t the
\nfunctions  of the Court in reference to the  acquisition  of
\nland  for the Trust, under the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>,  1894.”
\nSection\t 61<\/a>  modifies  the  Land  Acquisition  Act<\/a>  in\t the
\nfollowing words:\n<\/p>\n
“For   the  purpose  of\t acquiring  land  under\t  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act<\/a>, 1894, for the Trust-\n<\/p>\n
(a), the Tribunal  shall except for the purposes of  section
\n\t      (54) of that Act, be deemed to ‘he the  Court,
\n\t      and  the\tPresident of the Tribunal  shall  be
\n\t      deemed to be the Judge thereunder;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  the Act shall  be subject to the further  modifications
\n\t      as indicated in the Schedule;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  the President. of the Tribunal may summon witnesses and
\n\t      enforce  their attendance and may\t compel\t the
\n\t      production  of documents, by the\tsame  means,
\n\t      and so far as may be, in the same, manner,  as
\n\t      is provided in case of a Civil Court under the
\n\t      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and\n<\/p>\n
(d)  the award of  the\tTribunal shall be deemed to  be\t the
\n\t      award  of\t the.  Court under the\tLand  Acqui-\n<\/p>\n
\t      sition Act, 1894, and shall be final.”\n<\/p>\n
44<\/span><\/p>\n
We  need  not  deal with the  provisions  dealing  with\t the
\nconstitution  of the Tribunal, remuneration of its  members,
\netc.\n<\/p>\n
Section 68<\/a> enables an owner to apply to the Trust requesting
\nthat  the acquisition of land not required for the  purposes
\nof  a scheme may be abandoned on his executing an  agreement
\nto ,Observe conditions specified by the Trust in respect  of
\nthe  development of the property and to pay a charge  to  be
\ncalculated  in accordance with subsection (2) of section  69<\/a>
\nof  the Act.  The Trust can abandon an\tacquisition  without
\nrequiring sanction of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
The  Schedule modifies the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>\t in  various
\nrespects.  The relevant modifications are these :\n<\/p>\n
1.   After  clause  (e) of section 3<\/a>, the  following  clause
\nshall be deemed to be inserted, namely,-\n<\/p>\n
“(ee)  the expression ‘local authority’ includes  the  Trust
\nconstituted under the Nagpur improvement Trust Act<\/a>, 1936.”\n<\/p>\n
2.   (1) The  first  publication of a  notice  of  an  im-
\nprovement scheme under section 39 of the Nagpur\t Improvement
\nTrust Act, 1936, shall be substituted for, and have the same
\neffect\tas publication in the official Gazette, and  in\t the
\nlocality of, a notification under subsection (1) of  section
\n4<\/a>,  except where a declaration under section 4<\/a> or section  6<\/a>
\nhas previously been made and is still in force.
\n(2)  subject to the provisions of clauses IO and II of\tthis
\nSchedule,  the\tissue of a notice  under  sub-section  (4)of
\nsection 32 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, in the
\ncase  of  land acquired under that sub-section, and  in\t any
\nother  case the publication of a notification under  section
\n45  of\tthe  Nagpur Improvement Trust Act,  1936,  shall  be
\nsubstituted  for, and have the same effect as a\t declaration
\nby   the  State\t Government  under  section  6<\/a>,\t  unless   a
\ndeclaration under the last mentioned section has  previously
\nbeen made and is in force.\n<\/p>\n
3.The full-stop at the end of section II shall be  deemed
\n\t      to  ‘be  changed to a  semi-colon,  and  the
\n\t      following shall be deemed to ‘be added, namely
\n“and\n<\/p>\n
(iv)the\t costs which, in his opinion, should be allowed\t to
\nany person who is found to be entitled to compensation and
\nwho is not entitled to receive the additional,sum of fifteen
\n\t      percentum mentioned in sub-section (2)
\n45<\/span>
\nof  section 23<\/a> as having been actually and  reasonably\tin–
\ncurred\tby such person in preparing his claim  and  putting,
\nhis case before the Collector.\n<\/p>\n
The collector may disallow wholly or in part costs, incurred
\n\t      by any person, if he considers that the  claim
\n\t      made  by\tsuch  person  for  compensation
\n\t      is extravagant.”\n<\/p>\n
4……………………..\n<\/p>\n
5.(1)  In sub-section (3) of section 17<\/a> after the  figure
\n“24”‘ the words, figures, and letter “or section 24-A<\/a>” shall
\nbe deemed to be inserted.\n<\/p>\n
(2)To section 17<\/a>, the following shall be deemed to be added,
\nnamely.:\n<\/p>\n
“(5) When proceedings have been taken under this section for
\nthe acquisition of any land, and any person sustains damage
\nin consequence of being suddenly dispossessed of such  land,
\ncompensation   shall  be  paid\tto  such  person  for\tsuch
\ndispossession.”\n<\/p>\n
Para 6 of the Schedule inserts section 17-A<\/a>.
\nIt reads :\n<\/p>\n
“17-A.\t In every case referred to in section 16<\/a> or  section
\n17<\/a>,   Collector\t  shall,  upon\tpayment\t of  the   cost\t  of
\nacquisition,  make overcharge of the land to the  Trust\t and
\nthe  land shall thereupon vest in the Trust, subject to\t the
\nliability of the Trust to pay any further costs which may be
\nincurred on account of its acquisition.”
\nPara 10 amends section 23<\/a> thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“10(i)…………………………..
\n10(2) The full-stop at the end of sub-section (2) of section
\n23<\/a>  shall  be  deemed  to be changed to\t a  colon,  and\t the
\nfollowing proviso shall be deemed to be added :-
\n“Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any\tland
\nacquired  under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936,\t ex-
\ncept-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  buildings\tin  the actual occupation of  the  owner  or
\noccupied  free of rent by a relative of the owner, and\tland
\nappurtenant thereto, and\n<\/p>\n
(b)  gardens not let to tenants but used by the owners as  a
\nplace of resort.”\n<\/p>\n
10 (3) For the purposes of clause first of sub-section
\n(1)  of this section-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  the market value of the land shall be the market value
\n\t      according to the use to which the land was
\n46<\/span>
\nput at the date with reference to which the market-value  is
\nto be determined under that clause;…………….”
\nAnother\t advantage which is said to accrue to these  persons
\nis provided by S. 48-A<\/a>, as inserted by para 14.\t It reads :
\n“48-A. (1) If within a period of two years from the date  of
\nthe  publication  of  the declaration  under  section  6<\/a>  in
\nrespect\t of  any land, the Collector has not made  an  award
\nunder  section 1<\/a> 1<\/a> with respect to such land, the  owner  of
\nthe  land  shall, unless he has been to\t a  material  extent
\nresponsible   for   the\t delay,\t be  entitled\tto   receive
\ncompensation  for the damage suffered by him in\t consequence
\nof the delay.\n<\/p>\n
(2)The\tprovisions of Part III of this Act shall apply\tso
\nfar  as\t may be, to the determination  of  the\tcompensation
\npayable under this section.”\n<\/p>\n
It would be seen that the effect of the modifications in two respe
\ncts  is\t tremendous.  First, the owner whose  land  is
\nacquired under the Improvement Act<\/a> is paid compensation not
\naccording  to  the market value of the land but\t the  market
\nvalue according to the use to which the land was put at\t the
\ndate  with  reference  to which the market value  is  to  be
\ndetermined  in that clause.  In other words, if the land  is
\nbeing  used for agricultural purposes, even though it has  a
\npotential value as a building site, the potential value\t is
\nto  be\tignored.   The second respect  in  which  the  owner
\nsuffers if the land is acquired under the Improvement Act<\/a> is
\nthat  he  does not get a solatium of- 1 5 % which  he  would
\nhave  got  if  the land had been  acquired  under  the\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act<\/a>.   It\tis  true  that\the  has\t some  minor
\nadvantages  which  have\t been pointed  out  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t but  they have no comparison in value to  the\tloss
\nsuffered  by  virtue of the market  value  being  determined
\naccording to the use to which the land was being put or\t the
\nloss of 15% of the market value of the land.
\nThe  first  point which was raised was : whether it  is\t the
\nState  which  is  the  acquiring  authority  or\t it  is\t the
\nImprovement  Trust which is the acquiring authority,  under
\nthe Improvement Act<\/a>. it seems to us that it is quite  clear,
\nespecially  in view of. s. 17A<\/a> as inserted by para 6 of\t the
\nSchedule, that the acquisition will be by the Government and
\nit  is\tonly on payment of the cost of\tacquisition  to\t the
\nGovernment  that  the lands vest in the Trust.\tIt  is\ttrue
\nthat the  acquisition is for the Trust and may be  at  its
\ninstance,  but\tnevertheless  the  acquisition\tis  by\t the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
If  this is so, then it is quite clear that  the  Government
\ncan acquire for a housing accommodation scheme either under
\nthe ‘Land Acquisition Act<\/a> or under the Improvement Act<\/a>.\t  If
\nthis is
\n47<\/span>
\nso, it enables the State Government to discriminate  between
\none owner equally situated from another owner.
\nThis  Court held in Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Govt.(1)\tthat
\nthe fact that the lands could be acquired for a scheme under
\nthe Kanpur Urban Development Act. (U.P. Act<\/a> VI of 1945)\t did
\nnot preventthe\tGovernment from acquiring the lands  for
\nthe same purposeunder  the  Land  Acquisition  Act<\/a>   (as
\namended by the Kanpur\t Act).\t We  may  mention  that\t the
\nKanpur\tAct amended acquisition of land for the Board  in  a
\nsimilar manner as in the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act.
\nA  similar point was abandoned in P. Vaijravelu Mudaliar  v.
\nSpecial Deputy Collector, Madras<\/a>(2) by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri
\nin view of the above decision of this Court in Kanpur case.
\nThe question then arises whether the High Court is right  in
\nholding that the impugned provisions were hit by Art. 14<\/a>  of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
It is now well-settled that the State can make a  reasonable
\nclassification\tfor  the  purpose  of  legislation.   It  is
\nequally\t wellsettled that the classification in order to  be
\nreasonable  must  satisfy two tests (i)\t the  classification
\nmust  be  founded on intelligible differentia and  (ii)\t the
\ndifferentia  must have a rational relation with\t the  object
\nsought\tto be achieved by the legislation in  question.\t  In
\nthis  connection  it must be borne in mind that\t the  object
\nitself\tshould\tbe  lawful.  The  object  itself  cannot  be
\ndiscriminatory,\t for otherwise, for instance, if the  object
\nis  to discriminate against one section of the minority\t the
\ndiscrimination cannot be justified on the ground that  there
\nis  a  reasonable  classification because  it  has  rational
\nrelation to the, object sought to be achieved.
\nWhat  can  be reasonable classification for the\t purpose  of
\ndetermining  compensation, if the object of the\t legislation
\nis to compulsorily acquire land for public purposes ?
\nIt  would  not\tbe disputed  that  different  principles  of
\ncompensation cannot be formulated for lands acquired on\t the
\nbasis that the owner is. old or-young, healthy or ill,\ttall
\nor  short, or whether the owner has inherited  the  property
\nor built it With his own efforts, or whether the owner is ‘a
\npolitician   or\t  an  advocate.\t  Why  is   this   sort\t  of
\nclassification not sustainable ? Because the object being to
\ncompulsorily  acquire  for a public purpose, the  object  is
\nequally\t achieved  whether the land belongs to one  type  or
\nanother type.\n<\/p>\n
Can  classification  be\t made on the, basis  of\t the  public
\npurpose\t for the purpose of compensation for which  land  is
\nacquired ? In
\n(1) A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1217.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 614, 619.\n<\/p>\n
48<\/span><\/p>\n
other\twords  can  the\t legislature  lay   down   different
\nprinciples  of\tcompensation for lands acquired\t say  for  a
\nhospital  or  a school or a Government building\t ?  can\t the
\nlegislature.  say that for a hosPital land will be  acquired
\nat 50% of the market value for a school at 60% of the  value
\nand for a Government building at 70% of the, market value  ?
\nAll  three  objects are Public Purposes and as far  as’\t the
\nowner  is concerned it does not matter to him whether it  is
\none   Public Purpose or other.\tArt. 14<\/a> confers an individual
\nright and in order to justify a classification there  should
\nbe  something which justifies a different treatment to\tthis
\nindividual  right.   It\t seems\tto  us\tthat  ordinarily   a
\nclassification\t based\t on  the  public  purpose   is\t not
\npermissible  under  Art. 14<\/a> for the purpose  of\t determining
\nCompensation.\tThe Position is different when the owner  of
\nthe  land  himself  is the, recipient of  benefits  from  an
\nimprovement  scheme,  and the benefit to him is\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration  in- fixing compensation.\t Can  classification
\nbe  made on the basis of the authority acquiring the land  ?
\nIn  other words can different-principles of compensation  be
\nlaid if the land is acquired for or by an Improvement  Trust
\nor Municipal Corporation or the Government ? It seems to  us
\nthat  the  answer is in the negative because as far  as\t the
\nowner  is  concerned it does not matter to him\twhether\t the
\nland is acquired by one authority or the other.
\nIt  is equally immaterial whether it is one Acquisition\t Act<\/a>
\nor another Acquisition Act<\/a> under which the land is acquired.
\nIf  the existence of two Acts enables the State to give\t one
\nowner different treatment from another equally situated\t the
\nowner who is discriminated against, can claim the protection
\nof Art. 14.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t said that if this is the true\tposition  the  State
\nwould find it impossible to clear slums, to do various other
\nlaudable  thing,.  If this argument were to be\taccepted  it
\nwould be totally destructive of the protection given by Art.\n<\/p>\n
14.   It  would\t enable\t the State  to\thave,  one  law\t for
\nacquiring  lands for hospital, one law for  acquiring  lands
\nfor  schools,  one law acquiring lands for  clearing  slums, anoth
\ner  for acquiring lands for Government buildings;  one
\nfor  acquiring lands in New Delhi and another for  acquiring
\nlands  in  old Delhi.  It was said that in many\t cases,\t the
\nvalue of the land has increased not because of any effort by
\nthe owner but because of the general development of the city
\nin which the land is situated.\tThere is no doubt that\tthis
\nis  so, but Art. 14<\/a> prohibits the expropriation of  the\t un-
\nearned\tincrement of one owner while leaving  his  neighbour
\nuntouched.   This  neighbour could sell his  land  reap\t the
\nunearned increment.. If the object of the legislation is  to
\ntax  unearned  increment it should be  done  throughout\t the
\nState.\t The State cannot achieve this object piece-meat  by
\ncompulsory acquisition of land of some owners leaving others
\nalone.\tIf the object is to clear
\n49<\/span>
\nslums  it cannot be done at the expense of the owners  whose
\nlands  are  acquired, unless as we have said the  owner\t are
\ndirectly benefited by the scheme.  If the object is to build
\nhospitals it cannot be done at the expense of the owners  of
\nthe land which is acquired.  The hospital, schools etc. must
\nbe built at the expense of the whole community.
\nIt will not be denied that a statute cannot tax some  owners
\nof  land  leaving untaxed others equally situated.   If\t the
\nowners of the land cannot be taxed differently how can\tsome
\nowners be indirectly taxed by way of compulsory\t acquisition
\n?  It  is urged that if this were the, law it,will  tic\t the
\nhands of the State in undertaking social reforms.  We do not
\nagree.\t There is nothing in the Constitution  which  debars
\nthe  State  from  bettering  the  lot  of  millions  of\t our
\ncitizens.   For instance there is nothing to bar  the  State
\nfrom  taxing  unearned increment if the object\tis  to\tdeny
\nowners\tthe  full  benefit  of\tincrease  of  value  due  to
\ndevelopment of a town.\tIt; seems to us, as we have  already
\nsaid that to accede to the contentions of the appellant\t and
\ne States would be destructive of the protection afforded  by
\nArt. 14<\/a> of the Constitution.  The States would only have  to
\nconstitute  separate  acquiring\t bodies for  each  city,  or
\nDivision or indeed to achieve one special public purpose and
\nlay down different principles of compensation.
\nIn  P.\tVajravelu  Mudaliar  v.\t Special  Deputy  Collector,
\nMadras<\/a>(1)  there  were two Acts under which the land  of  an
\nowner could be acquired.  The land could have been  acquired
\nfor various schemes under the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, referred
\nto  as the Principal Act, in the judgment, and the  Amending
\nAct (The Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961).
\nCourt observed :\n<\/p>\n
“The land could have been acquired for all the said purposes
\nunder the Principal Act after paying the market value of the
\nland.\tThe Amending Act<\/a> empowers the State to acquire\tland
\nfor housing scheme at a price lower than that the State\t has
\nto pay if the same was acquired under the Principal Act.”
\nThe  Court examined various justifications for\tthe  classi-
\nfications  which were put forth by the State, and then\tcon-
\ncluded:-\n<\/p>\n
“From  whatever aspect the matter is looked at, the  alleged
\ndifferences have no reasonable relation to the object sought
\nto be achieved.\t It is said that the object of the  Amending
\nAct<\/a>  in\t itself\t may project the differences  in  the  lands
\nsought\tto be , acquired under the two Acts.  This  argument
\nputs the cart before the horse.\t It is one thing to say that
\nthe existing differ-\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1965] 1 S.C.R. 614.\n<\/p>\n
-L631 Supreme Court\/73
\n50<\/span>
\nences  between\tpersons and properties\thave  a\t reasonable
\nrelation  to  the  object sought to be achieved\t and  it  is
\ntotally a different thing to say that the object of the\t Act
\nitself\tcreated\t the differences.  Assuming  that  the\tsaid
\nproposition is sound, we cannot discover any differences  in
\nthe people owning lands or in the lands on the basis of\t the
\nobject.\t The object is to acquire lands for housing  schemes
\nat a low price.\t For achieving that object, any land falling
\nin  any\t of the said categories can be\tacquired  under\t the
\nAmending  Act<\/a>.\tSo, too, for a public purpose any such\tland
\ncan  be\t acquired under the principal Act.   We,  therefore,
\nhold  that discrimination is writ large on the Amending\t Act<\/a>
\nand  it cannot be sustained on the principal  of  reasonable
\nclassification.\t  We, therefore, hold that the Amending\t Act<\/a>
\nclearly infringes Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution and is void”.
\nIn Balammal & Ors. v. State of Madras<\/a>(1) in which the  facts
\nare  substantially similar, the Board constituted under\t the
\nMadras\tCity Improvement Trust Act, (Madras Act 16 of  1945)
\nwas  authorised\t by  virtue of sec. 71,\t with  the  previous
\nsanction  of  the  Government, to  acquire  land  under\t the
\nprovisions  of the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, 1894  for  carrying
\nout  any  of  the purposes of the Act  which  included\tTown
\nExpansion  Scheme (This sec. 71 is equivalent to see. 59  of
\nthe Improvement Act<\/a>).  For the purpose of acquiring land for
\nthe  Board  under  the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>,  1894  sec.  73
\nprovided  inter alia, that the, said Act shall be  subjected
\nto the modifications specified in the Schedule (This section
\n73<\/a>  corresponds\t to sec. 61 of the  Improvement\t Act<\/a>).\t The
\nSchedule  to the Act provided for modification in  the\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act<\/a> for certain specific purposes.\t The  Madras
\nAct of 1945 as replaced by the Madras City Improvement Trust
\nAct  (Madras  Act  37  of 1950)\t made  an  important  change
\ninasmuch as the result was that by the change persons  whose
\nlands were compulsorily acquired under the Madras Act 37  of
\n1950 were deprived of the right to the solatium which  would
\nbe  awardable  if  the lands were acquired  under  the\tLand
\nAcquisition Act<\/a>.  In this connection this Court observed :
\n“But,  in our judgment, counsel for the owners is  right  in
\ncontending that sub-cl. (2) of cl. 6 of the Schedule to\t Act
\n37  of 1950, insofar as it deprived the owners of the  lands
\nof  the statutory addition to the market value of the  lands
\nunder S. 23<\/a> (2) of the Land Acquisition Act<\/a> is violative  of
\nthe  equality  clause of the Constitution, and\tis  on\tthat
\naccount void.  If the
\n(1)  [1969] 1 S.C.R. 90.\n<\/p>\n
51<\/span><\/p>\n
State  had acquired  the lands for improvement of  the\ttown
\n\t      under the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, the  acquiring
\n\t      authority\t was bound to award in\taddition  to
\n\t      the market value 15% statutory under s.  23(2)<\/a>
\n\t      of the Land Acquisition Act.  But by acquiring
\n\t      the  lands under the Land acquisition  Act  as
\n\t      modified\tby the Schedule to the\tMadras\tCity
\n\t      Improvement  Trust  Act  37 of  1950  for\t the
\n\t      Improvement Trust which is also a public\tpur-
\n\t      pose  the owners are, it is claimed,  deprived
\n\t      of  the right to that statutory addition.\t  An
\n\t      owner  of\t land  is  ordinarily  entitled\t  to
\n\t      receive  the  solatium  in  addition  to\t the
\n\t      market-value for compulsory acquisition of his
\n\t      land,  if\t it  is\t acquired  under  the\tLand
\n\t      Acquisition  Act<\/a>,\t but not if it\tis  acquired
\n\t      under  the Madras City Improvement Trust\tAct.
\n\t      A clear case of discrimination which infringes
\n\t      the  guarantee of equal protection of the\t law
\n\t      arises, and the owners of the lands which\t are
\n\t      compulsorily  acquired must on  the  decisions
\n\t      of, it his Court, be deemed invalid”.\n<\/p>\n
After reviewing some earlier cases, the Court held:
\n” We. therefore, hold that cl. 6 sub-cl. (2) of the Schedule
\nread with s. 73 of Madras Act 37 of 1950 which deprives\t the
\nowners of the statutory right to solarium at the rate of 15%
\non the market-value of the lands, is invalid, and the owners
\nof the lands are entitled to the statutory solatium under S.
\n23(2)<\/a>  of  the\tLand Acquisition  Act  in  consideration  of
\ncompulsory acquisition of their land.”\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  counsel  was not able to satisfy us that the above
\ncase  was distinguishable.  We are of the opinion  that\t the
\ncase was rightly decided and must govern this case.  In this
\nview of the matter, it is not necessary to refer to all\t the
\ncases  referred to us at the Bar.  We may mention  that\t Mr.
\nTarkunde also placed reliance on Art. 31 (A) (1) (a)<\/a> of\t the
\nConstitution.\tIt is now well settled that Art. 3 1 (A)(  1
\n)(a)<\/a> has relevance to agrarian reforms and development.\t  It
\nhas nothing to do with acquisition of land for building of a
\ncapital of a State.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeal, fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
U.C.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n52<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nagpur Improvement Trust And … vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 689, 1973 SCR (3) 39 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Ray, A.N., Palekar, D.G. & Beg, M. Hameedullah, Dwivedi, S.N. & Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNagpur Improvement Trust And ... vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagpur Improvement Trust And ... vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-13T21:07:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagpur Improvement Trust And … vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-13T21:07:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972\"},\"wordCount\":4596,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972\",\"name\":\"Nagpur Improvement Trust And ... vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-13T21:07:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagpur Improvement Trust And … vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nagpur Improvement Trust And ... vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagpur Improvement Trust And ... vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-13T21:07:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagpur Improvement Trust And … vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972","datePublished":"1972-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-13T21:07:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972"},"wordCount":4596,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972","name":"Nagpur Improvement Trust And ... vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-13T21:07:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagpur-improvement-trust-and-vs-vithal-rao-and-others-on-11-december-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagpur Improvement Trust And … vs Vithal Rao And Others on 11 December, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}