Directory time-limit for executing acquisition-linked scheme cannot annul completed acquisition or restore title to former owners.

Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was treated as a directory time-limit for executing a sanctioned scheme, not a mandatory condition that would undo a completed acquisition. Because compensation had been paid, possession had been taken, and title had already vested in the Trust, and because the statute did not provide for divestment, annulment, restoration of land, or refund of compensation, non-execution within five years did not invalidate the acquisition. The provision was read with the chapter-level control mechanism, especially Section 55-C, as creating an administrative consequence for default rather than a basis to reopen completed vesting. The contrary Full Bench view was overruled.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time-limit prescribed in Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 for execution of a sanctioned scheme is mandatory so that non-execution within that period nullifies an acquisition already completed and requires restoration of unutilised land to the erstwhile owners.

Analysis: The acquisition had already been completed under the statutory scheme: compensation was paid, possession was taken, and title vested in the Trust under the acquisition framework applicable to the Act. Section 44-A uses mandatory language, but it does not specify any consequence for non-compliance, nor does it provide for divestment of title, annulment of the acquisition, restoration of land, refund of compensation, or allied consequences. The provision was read with the control mechanism in Chapter V-A, especially Section 55-C, which supplies the administrative consequence of default by the Trust. The placement of Section 44-A in the chapter dealing with schemes, rather than in the chapter governing acquisition, also indicated that it was intended as a time frame for execution and not as a device to undo completed acquisitions. The contrary Full Bench view was declined and overruled.

Conclusion: Section 44-A is directory, not mandatory. Non-execution of the scheme within five years does not invalidate the completed acquisition, divest the Trust of title, or require restoration of unutilised land to the former owners.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the scheme and acquisition failed, and the appellant succeeded in overturning the order under appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory time-limit for executing an acquisition-linked scheme does not itself prescribe the consequence of non-compliance and the statute contains no express or implied divestment mechanism, the provision is treated as directory and cannot be construed to annul a completed acquisition or restore title to the former owners.

---