Sepal Hotel v. State of Punjab
Background
A hotel disputed a municipal demand to leave land for a thirty-foot road under an old town planning scheme. It argued that its objections remained undecided and relied on a later judgment invalidating the statutory provision prospectively. A demarcation report also stated that the road did not appear in the revenue record.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected the hotel's contention that the scheme had not become final: the municipality had already rejected the substantive objections, and the later invalidation did not undo a scheme finalized before that judgment. However, the demarcation report left uncertainty about the actual road location, and dismissing it as incorrect did not establish the correct position on the ground. The Court modified the High Court's order to require fresh demarcation within two months, with the hotel participating. If the revenue record showed the thirty-foot road, it had to be clearly marked before implementation, and the parties had to abide by the resulting demarcation.
Lesson Learnt
An old scheme is not automatically undone by a judgment expressly applying prospectively. Even so, authorities must establish the actual boundary and road position before enforcing a demand against property.