TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed on September 3, 1977. Notification under s.28 of the Adhiniyam was published on June 7, 1982. Immediately the appellant had sought for the approval of the Government through the letter dated July 27, 1982. The Government approved the schem on August 24, 1982. The declaration under s. 32 of the Adhiniyam was published on February 28, 1987. The respondents filed writ Petition No. 14708/84. The Division Bench following the ratio in writ Petition No. 17372/87 dated March 18, 1993 titled Narinder Mohan Foundation Trust v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, allowed the writ petition declaring that since prior approval of the Government was not obtained under exception (iii) to s. 59(1) (a) of the Adhiniyam, the notification under s. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (iii) Schemes which are initiated after the declaration under s.3 of the Act with the approval of the State Government. It is to be seen that the language employed therein is that the approval of the State Government is necessary. Question is whether it would be prior approval or approval given subsequent to the notification under s.28 or declaration under s.32 is valid in law. If prior approval would have been a pre-condition for further steps, the Act would have said so. This not having been done, it seems to us what is material is to obtain approval of the State Government. The reason appears to be that when the schemes have been framed, the land suitably required for effective implementation of the scheme alone should be acquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e framed by the Board. Until approval is given by the Government, the Board may not effectively implement the scheme. Nevertheless, once the approval is given, all the previous acts done or actions taken in anticipation of the approval gets validated and the publications made under the Act thereby becomes valid. The question then is whether present is a fit case for our interference under Art.136. On similar facts when the appellant itself has compromised with others and the same has not been extended to the respondents, we think that it is not a fit case for our interference. The respondents' society also consist of the members who need sites for construction of their houses. Right to shelter is a fundamental right, which springs fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
