Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a group of twenty-three writ petitions, each of which is filed by a landholder in the city of Ahmedabad, challenging in each the validity, on the ground that a few sections of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Bombay Act No. 59 of 1949 (hereafter called the Corporations Act), are ultra vires, of a notice or notices issued by the Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (hereafter called the Municipal Commissioner) under Section 212 of the Corporal ions Act, requiring each property-holder to show cause why his building or buildings or a part or parts thereof, which were within the regular line of a public street, should not be pulled down and the land within the said line acquired by him. The facts giving rise to these petitions are the same in a majority of cases and are similar in others, and a majority of the questions of law raised in each of the petitions is the same and the other questions of law are similar. Therefore, all the twenty-three petitions were called and heard together with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on both sides and "we are delivering this common judgment to dispose of all the petitions.

2. The Corporations Act was passed by the Bombay Provincial Legislature on 29th December 1949, and, though it came into force in July 1951, it was deemed, by virtue of the provisions contained in Bombay Act 10 of 1953, to have come into force on 20th of November 1951. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (hereafter called the Municipal Corporation) came to be established under the Corporations Act for the City of Ahmedabad. Before the Corporation was so established, the city of Ahmedabad was governed by the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, Bombay Act No. 18 of 1925 (hereafter called the Boroughs Act). In the year 1942, under Section 118 of the Boroughs Act, lines, called the regular lines of the public street (hereafter called road lines) were prescribed over certain areas abutting on public streets of certain localities situated in the area known as Pankor Naka in the city of Ahmedabad. Petitioners, whilst admitting that such road lines were prescribed, challenge the validity of such lines on certain grounds to be mentioned at the proper place. According to the Corporation, these road lines were in existence when the city of Ahmedabad became a Municipal Corporation. Respondents are the Municipal Corporation, its Municipal Commissioner and two ex-Municipal Commissioners and the State of Gujarat. Respondents contend that, under the proviso to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 210 of the Corporations Act, the road lines prescribed whilst the city of Ahmedabad was a Municipal Borough, were deemed to be street lines for the purposes of the Corporations Act "until a street line is prescribed by the Commissioner under mis clause." In the case of petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1454 of 1965, the road line so deemed to have been prescribed was varied by an order passed by the Municipal Commissioner under the proviso aforesaid. After this variation, the Municipal Commissioner issued a notice to that petitioner under Section 212, Sub-section (1), Clause (b), of the Corporations Act. That petitioner filed objections which were overruled. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner then issued another notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 212, calling upon that petitioner to remove his structure within seven days of the receipt of the notice and to create open space. The above two notices under Section 212 were challenged by the above petitioner in this Court in Special Civil Application No. 329 of 1960. The challenge was grounded mainly on the basis that the variation of the road line by the Municipal Commissioner under the provision to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 210 was bad and that, the variations could have been made by the Municipal Commissioner only after undergoing the procedure prescribed by Clause (b) of the above sub-section. That contention was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the above case, since reported in I G.L.R. (1960), page 223- Girdharlal Ganpatram v. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. It appears that the Municipal Commissioner thereafter, in a majority of the cases in these petitions, published notices prescribing, what is described in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 210 as a fresh line, in substitution of the old lines and invited objections to such fresh lines. The Standing Committee of the Corporation considered the objections and overruled the same, and fresh road lines came to be prescribed under Clause (b) aforesaid in respect of properties covered by a majority of the petitions. In regard to all these properties, and also in regard to the properties covered in certain other petitions in which old road lines subsisted, the Municipal Commissioner issued notices under Section 212, Sub-section (1), Clause (b), calling upon the landholders to show cause why their building or buildings or part or parts thereof within the road lines should not be pulled down and the lands within the road lines acquired by the Municipal Commissioner, Petitioners filed objections, but, the same were overruled, Thereafter, with the approval of the Standing Committee, the Municipal Commissioner, acting under Sub-section (2) of Section 212 of the Corporations Act, issued final notices against all the property holders requiring them to pull down the buildings or parts thereof within seven days of the receipt of the notices. Petitioners of all the present petitions, except petitioners in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1568 of 1965, 1569 of 1965, 11 of 1966 and 14 of 1966 filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the above two notices issued by the Municipal Commissioner. These petitions were filed in 1962 and they came up for hearing at the fag end of 1965. Petitioners withdrew those petitions after they had been heard for some time. The above petitioners say that, they withdrew those petitions, because, they had erroneously not made the Municipal Commissioners and the State parties thereto and that, they had, equally erroneously, failed to make certain averments in those petitions which were necessary for a fair and just decision of the various contentions arising out of the issue of the above notices. Those petitioners thereafter filed the present petitions on 8th December 1965. Special Civil Applications Nos. 1568 and 1569, both of 1965, were also filed on the same date. The other two petitions were filed in January 1966. In these petitions, all petitioners challenge the validity of the two notices issued against them under Section 212 on the ground that Section 212 and some other allied sections of the Corporations Act are ultra vires and a few other grounds.

6. Then comes a group of sections which are relevant for the present petitions, on the provisions of which a number of submissions are based and the validity of some of which has been challenged in the petition. These sections are Sections 209 to 214 and 216. At the present stage, we shall only indicate the broad provisions of these sections, and we shall indicate the details, if necessary, at a later stage and at a proper place in this judgment. Section 209 confers power upon the Commissioner (1) to acquire any land required for the purpose of opening, widening, extending, diverting or otherwise improving any public street; (2) to acquire, in addition to the said land and the buildings, if any, standing thereon, all such land with the buildings, if any, standing thereon, as it shall seem expedient for the Corporation to acquire outside the regular line, or of the intended regular line, of such street. Section 210 confers power upon the Commissioner (a) to prescribe a line on one or both sides of any public street, and (b) from time to time, but subject in each case to the previous approval of the Standing Committee, to prescribe a fresh line in substitution for any line so prescribed or for any part thereof. The proviso to Sub-section (1) prescribes a procedure which is to be undergone for prescribing a fresh line under Clause (b). The proviso says that, the Standing Committee shall not accord approval to the fresh line unless at least one month before the meeting of the Standing Committee at which the matter is to be decided, notice of the proposal has been given by the Commissioner by advertisement in the manner laid down in the proviso and until the Standing Committee has considered all objections to the said proposal made in writing and delivered in the way mentioned in the proviso. Sub-section (2) calls the line so prescribed as "the regular line of the street. " Sub-section (4) prohibits all persons from constructing or reconstructing any portion of any building on land within the regular road line, except with the written permission of the Commissioner and in accordance with the conditions imposed therein. It requires the Commissioner to report the grounds of such permission with his reasons in writing to the Standing Committee. Section 211 confers power on the Commissioner to require and enforce the setting back of buildings to the regular road line. It says that, if any building or any part of a building abutting on a public street is within the regular road line, the Commissioner may, whenever it is proposed (1) to rebuild such building or to take down such building to an extent exceeding one-half thereof above the ground level, or (b) to remove, reconstruct or make any addition to or structural alteration in any portion of such building which is within the regular road line, in any order which he issues concerning the rebuilding, alteration or repair of such building, require such building to be set back to the regular road line. Sub-section (2) of Section 211 says that, when any building or any part thereof within the regular road line falls down or is burnt down or is taken down, the Commissioner may at once take possession on behalf of the Corporation of the portion of the land within the regular road line theretofore occupied by the said building and, if necessary, clear the same. Sub-section (3) of Section 211 enacts that the land acquired Under Section 211 "shall thence forward be deemed a part of the public street and shall vest, as such, in the Corporation. " Sub-section (1) of Section 212 confers some additional powers on the Commissioner to order a set back to the regular road line. It says that, if any building or any part thereof is within the regular road line, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require certain things to be done if, in his opinion, it is necessary to set back the building to the regular road line "if the provisions of Section 211 do not apply. " The things, which the Commissioner is required to do by written notice, are, to require the owner of the building concerned to show cause within a specified period why such building or any part thereof, which is within the road line "shall not be pulled down and the land within the said line acquired by the Commissioner, " or to require such owner to appear before him personally or by a duly authorised agent to show cause why the same action should not be taken in regard to the building concerned. Sub-section (2) of Section 212 provides that, if the owner concerned fails to show sufficient cause, the Commissioner may, with the approval of the Standing Committee, require the owner, by a written notice, to pull down the building or the part thereof which is within the regular road line. Sub-section (3) of Section 212 provides that, if the owner fails to pull down such building of any part thereof, the Commissioner may pull down the same. Sub-section (4) of Section 212 commands the Commissioner to take possession on behalf of the Corporation of the portion of the land within the road line which was theretofore occupied by the building concerned, and such land shall thence forward be deemed a part of the public street and shall vest as such in the Corporation. " Section 212 applies to open land or to land occupied by such insubstantial things, as a platform, verandah, etc., within the regular road line. In regard to such open land, Section 213 confers power upon Commissioner, after giving notice to the owner of the land or the building concerned, to take possession on behalf of the Corporation of such land and, if necessary, to clear the same, and says that "the land so acquired shall thenceforward be deemed a part of the public street. " Section 214 gives liberty to Commissioner to acquire, at the request of the owner, the balance of the land outside the road line, if he is satisfied that such land will not be fit or suitable for any beneficial use, and says that "such surplus land shall be deemed to be a part of the public street vesting in the Corporation. " Section 216 provides for the payment of compensation for the land acquired under the foregoing Sections 211, 212, 213 or 216. It casts a duty upon the Commissioner to pay compensation to the owner of any building or land required for a public street under any of the above sections "for any loss which such owner may sustain in consequence of such acquisition. There are two provisos to Section 216, both of which play an important role in the arguments of petitioners. The first proviso says that, the Commissioner shall take into consideration any increase or decrease in the value of the balance of the property left after the building or land is acquired, which increase or decrease is likely to accrue from the set back to the regular road line. It further requires the Commissioner to allow such increase or decrease in determining the amount of compensation. The second proviso says that, if any such increase in the value exceeds the amount of loss sustained or expenses incurred by the owner, the Commissioner may recover from such owner half the amount of such excess as a betterment charge. Sections 389 to 391 occur in Chapter XXIV under the heading "Compensation. " Section 389 commands the Commissioner or his delegate, in discharging his functions under the Act, to do as little damage as possible. It further commands the Commissioner "to pay compensation assessed in the manner prescribed by or under this Act" for any damage sustained in consequence of the exercise among others of the power of acquiring any building or land required for a public street. Section 390 requires the Commissioner or his authorised subordinate, subject to the provisions of the Act, to determine the amount of compensation to be paid under Section 389 "after holding such enquiry as he thinks fit. " Section 391 confers a right of appeal upon any person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner or his subordinate recorded under Section 390 to the Judge "in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXVI. " Chapter XXVI, however, does not prescribe any particular procedure for preferring an appeal from an order determining the amount of compensation by the Commissioner. Section 434 makes, save as expressly provided by Chapter XXVI, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals from original decrees, applicable to appeals to the Judge from the orders of the Commissioner.

27. Now, we may summarize the provisions contained in Section 212 of the Corporations Act. Sub-section (1) provides for three conditions which are to be satisfied before the power thereunder can be exercised. They are, (1) that the building or any part thereof must fall within the road line, (2) that the provisions of Section 211 do not apply, and (3) that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, it is necessary to set back the building to the road line. Sub-section (1) further says that, if these three conditions are satisfied, then, the Commissioner may issue a written notice requiring "the owner of such building" to show cause why such building or any part thereof should not be pulled down and the land within the road line acquired by the Commissioner. The Commissioner is empowered to determine the time within which and the mode in which cause is to be shown. Sub-section (2) says that, if such owner fails to show sufficient cause the Commissioner may, with the sanction of the Standing Committee, require the owner by a written notice to pull down the building or any part thereof, which is within the road line, within a period specified in the notice. If the owner does not carry out the requisition, then, Sub-section (3) confers power on the Commissioner to pull down the building and to recover all expenses which may be incurred by him in so pulling down the building. Sub-section (4) commands the Commissioner to take possession on behalf of the Corporation of the portion of the land within the road line and, as already mentioned, states that thenceforward such land shall be deemed a part of the public street. Therefore, the powers which are conferred by Section 212 on the Commissioner are (1) the power to show cause why the building should not be pulled down and the land beneath acquired, (2) the power to require the owner to pull down the building, (3) the power to pull down the building if the owner does not do so, and (4) the power to take possession of the land denuded of the building. If, all or some of these powers are exercised, then, the section says that, the land, so denuded, shall be deemed a part of the public street. Now, in our judgment, the scheme of the section is very clear and admits of no doubt. The object of the scheme is to convert private land into a part of the public street. It is the land which becomes vested in the Corporation. Under the aforesaid scheme, the building at no time ever vests in the Corporation. It is only after the building is pulled down that the consequence of vesting takes place. The owner becomes divested of his property only after the land is denuded of the building and it is taken possession of by the Municipal Commissioner if the owner complies with the requisition by the Municipal Commissioner to pull down the building. It is quite clear that, what the owner is doing is the demolition of his own property. Even if the owner does not respect the command of the Municipal Commissioner and when the Municipal Commissioner himself pulls down the building, it is the building of the owner which the Commissioner pulls down and not the building of the Corporation. Therefore, the conclusion, in our judgment is inevitable that, it is only the land denuded of the building which becomes vested and which, therefore, is the subject matter of acquisition. The steps of demolition of the building which the Commissioner enjoins or which the Commissioner himself takes are all designed to achieve the above object. But, those steps for facilitating the design are not intended to vest the building in the Corporation prior to its demolition. But, at the same time, we cannot agree with Mr. Vakil's submission that, the power which the Commissioner exercises, antecedent to the vesting of the land, are independent powers. In our judgment, all the powers are interwoven and, though they culminate in the land vesting in the Corporation as a part of the public street, the other powers are not conferred on the Municipal Commissioner in themselves for their own sake, but, they have been conferred on him to facilitate the final achievement of converting private property into a part of the public street. 28. Now, the first submission of Mr. Mehta is that, though the owner loses his building in the above process, the Corporation does not compensate him for the loss of such building. This submission is based Of the interpretation of Section 216 of the Corporations Act which directs the Commissioner to pay compensation. Alternatively, Mr. Mehta contends that, even if compensation is paid for the loss of the building, Section 216 does not provide for payment of compensation to the holders of all the interests in the land acquired or the building lost. Thirdly, Mr. Mehta contends that, in any case, the provisos to Section 216 take away either a part or the whole of the compensation given by the principal section or, in some cases, even compel the owner to make a payment from his own pocket and thus the owner either loses the whole or a part of his compensation, or is required to pay something more. The first condition in Section 299, Sub-section (2) of the Government of India Act is stated to have been broken on the aforesaid interpretations of Section 216.