Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf ofthe appellants had contended that in view of the fact that the lands in question have been included in the local area of the municipal District of Malad by Notification under District of malad by Notification under section 8 (1) of the Bombay District municipal Act 1901. As well as in view of the fact that the state Government has already issued a Notification on 29th Mar., in exercise of its power under section 88 (1) (b) of the Bombay Tenancy Act declaring the entire land in village kurar as being reserved for non-agricultural and industrial development, the provisions ofthe Tenancy Act were wholly inapplicable to the lands in question and not only were the plaintiffs not entitled to claim any right under the Tenancy Act but the reference made to the Tahsildar was also not necessary.

(II) The Government by subsequent Notification dated 22nd Nov., 1950 published in the Bombay Government Gazette dated 7th Dec., 1950, part I A, after making a reference to the Notification dated 24th May , 1948, referred to above, declared under Sections 4 and 7 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, that the local area , the local limits whereof are set forth in the schedule annexed to the Notification to be a permanent Municipal District with effect from 1st April , 1951 under the name of the Municipal District of Malad. The schedule set out the limits of the permanent Municipal District of Malad and they were the same as were specified in the Notification of 24th May, 1948.

19. The Notification dated 29th Mar., 1957, referred to in S. 88-A1 above is the same Notification No. TNC 5157/31/90-M by which lands in Kurar were reserved for non-agricultural and industrial development. By this new provision it was provided that any alnd situated in any of the Villages specified in Schedule 4 - Village Kurar is at Serial No. 12 in the Schedule - was not included with in the limits of former municipal limits of Malad immdiately before 1st Feb., 1957 and the tenant of the land would have been deemed to have purchased the land under Section 32 but for the Government Notification dated 29th Mar., 1957, such a tenant shall, notwithstanding the said Notification, be deemed to have purchased the land under S. 32 on the relevant date in the section and the provisions of Sections 32-R and 43 were to apply to such purchased accordingly. This provision operates only in respect of those lands which were not included within the limits of Kandivali, Borivali and Malad immediately before the 1st day of Mar., 1957. Tenants of such lands were not vested with a right of statutory purchase if the were deprived of such a right as a result of Notification dated 29th Mar., 1957.

20. The Lands in question, even as specified in the plaint are Survey Nos. 32 part and 33 part i.e., City Survey Nos. 74, 75, 84 (1 to 7), 95 and 95 (1 to 4), The proclamation dated 24th May, 1948 included Survey Nos. 22 to 39 of village Kurar as proposed to be included in the permanent Municipal District of Malad. We have also referred to the final Notification issued dated 22nd Nov., 1950 by which the area within the limits specified there was constituted to be a permanent municipal district with effect from 1st April, 1951 in the Municipal District of Malad. We have also pointed out that the limits are same as specified in the earlier Notification of 24th May, 1948, The express provisions in Section 88-A1 further reiterate the position that while in respect of certain lands which were not within the limits of Malad Muncipality before 1st Feb., 1957, statutory ownership rights were to be vested in the tenant thereof, no such rights were contemplated in respect of the lands in question because they were already part of the Municipality of Malad.