Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Section 44-A of Punjab Town Improvement Act is Directory, Not Mandatory: Supreme Court Decision

        The Administrator MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Versus Ramji Lal Bagla

        The Administrator MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Versus Ramji Lal Bagla - 1995 AIR 2329, 1995 SCC (5) 272, JT 1995 (5) 486, 1995 SCALE (4)559 Issues Involved:

        1. Validity of the scheme under Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.
        2. Consequences of non-execution of the scheme within the stipulated period.
        3. Mandatory or directory nature of Section 44-A.
        4. Restoration of unutilized land to erstwhile owners.
        5. Refund of compensation and other related consequences.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Validity of the Scheme under Section 44-A:
        The primary issue in the appeal was whether the scheme, which was not executed within the five-year period specified in Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, remains valid. The respondents argued that the scheme should be quashed since it was not executed within the stipulated time. The appellants contended that once the award is passed and possession is taken, the title to the land vests in the Trust, and the non-completion of the scheme within five years does not invalidate the scheme or nullify the acquisition.

        2. Consequences of Non-Execution of the Scheme:
        The respondents filed a writ petition seeking to quash the scheme on the ground of non-execution within the prescribed period. The High Court allowed the writ petition based on the Full Bench decision in Nawal Singh v. The Administrator, Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri and others. The Supreme Court examined whether the non-execution of the scheme within the specified period nullifies the acquisition and necessitates the return of the land to the original owners.

        3. Mandatory or Directory Nature of Section 44-A:
        The Supreme Court analyzed whether Section 44-A is mandatory or directory. The Court noted that the section uses the term 'shall' but does not specify the consequences of non-compliance. It highlighted that one of the tests to determine whether a provision is mandatory or directory is whether the enactment provides for the consequences of non-compliance. The Court concluded that Section 44-A is directory and not mandatory, as it does not provide for the nullification of the acquisition or the divesting of title from the Trust upon non-compliance.

        4. Restoration of Unutilized Land to Erstwhile Owners:
        The respondents argued that unutilized land should be returned to the original owners if the scheme is not executed within the specified period. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 44-A does not imply that non-compliance results in the restoration of land to its erstwhile owners. The Court emphasized that the absence of provisions for the return of land, refund of compensation, and related matters indicates that the section is directory.

        5. Refund of Compensation and Other Related Consequences:
        The Court addressed the complications that would arise if Section 44-A were interpreted as mandatory, such as the refund of compensation, payment of interest, and compensation for improvements made by the Trust. It concluded that the absence of provisions for these matters further supports the view that Section 44-A is directory. The Court also noted that the placement of Section 44-A in Chapter IV, rather than Chapter VI, which deals with acquisition and related matters, indicates that it was not intended to nullify acquisitions.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court overruled the Full Bench decision in Nawal Singh and held that Section 44-A is directory. The non-execution of the scheme within the specified period does not invalidate the acquisition or require the return of unutilized land to the original owners. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. There was no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found