Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. So far as Building Nos. 147-151 are concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the said buildings were in sound condition and did not require any structural repairs as the petitioner had expended considerable amounts of money in putting the said buildings in good order.

5. On 25th of June, 1981, the petitioner received a notice purported to be a notice under section 92(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 28 of 1977"). By this notice, it was alleged that the Board constituted under Act No. 28 of 1977 had issued a certificate under section 88(3)(a) and that the said Board was of the opinion that the buildings referred to in the schedule to the notice were not capable of being repaired or rendered fit for habitation at reasonable expenses and, hence, were not considered for repairs under the said Act. This notice also informed the petitioner that the Board had submitted to the Government of Maharashtra a proposal under section 92(1) of the Act to acquire the land indicated in the Schedule for the issue of clearance and compulsory acquisition order and to acquire the land and buildings in whatever condition they were in. The said notice further informed the petitioner that the Government of Maharashtra had approved the proposal under section 93(1) initiated by the Board and had indicated its approval to the Board and that the acquisition proposal has been forwarded to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for initiating acquisition proceedings. The said notice finally called upon the petitioner to vacate the said land within 15 days from the date on which the clearance and compulsory acquisition order under section 93(5) of the Act became operative. The notice also called upon the petitioner, the occupiers and the owners of the described land to submit their objections and suggestions to the acquisition proposal, if any, on or before 27th July, 1981. In the schedule to the said notice, inter alia, the lands on which Buildings 145-D, 145-E, 145-F and 147-151 were situated were specified. The petitioner, by her reply dated 16th August 1981, objected to the acquisition proposal by challenging the very basis of the notice. She contended that the concerned buildings were not in such a dilapidated condition as to require structural repairs, nor were they in such a condition that repairs thereto were necessary. She pointed out that there were, in fact, no buildings as Nos. 145-D and 145-E as the said buildings had been demolished in the year 1976. With regard to Building No. 145-F, the petitioner contended that it was always in good condition, save the sanitary blocks thereof which had also been repaired by the Repairs Board and that the Board had certified the building to be in sound and fit condition for human habitation. So far as the buildings Nos. 147-151 were concerned, the petitioner contended that they were in an enviably sound and perfect condition needing no repairs at all. She pointed out that she herself was residing in the said buildings and that even a cursory look at them would satisfy any authority that it would be ridiculous to say that the said structures were in a dilapidated condition. She challenged the notice on the ground that the conditions requisite for issuing the certificate under section 88(3) of Act No. 28 of 1977 had not been satisfied. She also offered to get the structures on 147-151 examined by any independent architect to show that they did not require any structural repairs at all. The petitioner, therefore, called upon the Special Land Acquisition Officer to withdraw the notice.

7. By another order dated 31st January, 1983, purportedly issued under section 93(5) of Act No. 28 of 1977, the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed 10th February, 1983 as the date on which the acquisition proposal, as sanctioned by the State Government, shall become operative. Both the said order were sent and received together by the petitioner.

8. Mr. Pradhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the acquisition proposal and all subsequent proceedings culminating in the order dated 31st January, 1983 as being wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of Act No. 28 of 1977. He contended that, under the scheme of this Act, when a building becomes so old as to need structural repairs, the Board constituted under section 18 is required to undertake such structural repairs to the building unless the Board is of the opinion, (a) that the cost of structural requires to the building will exceed five hundred rupees per square metre or, (b) that the cost of structural repairs will exceed five hundred rupees per square metre, but the size of the land on which the said building stands is such that, for some reason or the other, it would not be possible or economical to erect any new building thereon and there is an adjoining building and the cost of the structural repairs of such building does not exceed five hundred rupees per square metre. If the Board comes to such an opinion, then the Board can issue a certificate under section 88(3) of Act No. 28 of 1977 and make a submission of proposal for acquisition to the State Government under section 92. He, however, contends that, in any event, a certificate as contemplated under section 88(3) is a condition precedent for submission of the proposal for acquisition under section 92. It is only thereafter that the proposal is approved by the State Government and the land, with or without the structures thereupon, is acquired by resort to acquisition proceedings. Mr. Pradhan, further contended that, considering the serious consequences entailed in the issuing of the certificate, before forming an opinion as contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 88, the owner of the building or other person affected should be given an opportunity to be heard in the matter as otherwise it would be open to the Board to issue such a certificate even in respect of buildings which are in perfectly sound condition and thereafter proceed to acquire them. The petitioner was neither heard nor given an opportunity to make representation before the certificate dated 8th June, 1979 was issued under section 88(3)(b) of Act No. 28 of 1977.

9. It is further contended by the petitioner that there was no application of mind by the Board to the germane facts prior to issuing the certificate under section 88(3)(b) of the Act. There is substance in this contention. The certificate in terms states that the Board was of the opinion that the cost of structural repairs, inter alia, to buildings 145-D and 145-E exceeds one hundred and twenty rupees per square meter. It is an admitted position that both these buildings were demolished in the year 1976. That a certificate issued on 8th June, 1970 should contain a recital that the cost of structural repairs to the buildings 145-D and 145-E, in the opinion of the Board, exceeds one hundred and twenty rupees per square meter, clearly shows that there is no application of mind to the material facts before the said certificate was issued. This certificate does not refer to building No. 145-F at all. With reference to buildings 147-151, the certificate states :

"...the cost of structural repairs to such buildings does not exceed one hundred twenty rupees per square metre."

A bare perusal of section 88(3) of Act No. 28 of 1977 would show that the certificate fails to comply with the provision thereof. So far as buildings 145-D and 145-E are concerned, the certificate is issued almost three years after the buildings were demolished. As regards Buildings 147-151, the certificate does not state what is required to be stated under section 88(3). In either case, the certificate does not comply with the provision of section 88(3).