AMBALAL PURSHOTIAM ETC & Ors. v. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MlTTEll & Ors.

Section 63 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act by the first sub-section authorises the Municipal Borough to acquire and. hold property both movaltle and immovable, whether within or without its limits. Section 118 authorises the Chief Officer of the municipality, subject to the approval of the municipality, to prescribe a line. on each side of every ~public street within the: municipal borough and from time to time to prescribe a fresh line in substitution of any line so prescribed or for any part thereof. By cl. (a) of sub-s. (3) of s. 118, except under the provisions. of s. 143 no person shall construct or reconstruct any portion. of any building within the regular line of the public street without the permission of the Chief Officer under s. 123. Clause (b) of sub-s .. ( 3) of s. 118 provides that when the Chief Officer refuses permission to construct or reconstruct any building in any area within the regular line of the public street, such· area shall with the approval of the municipality be added to the street and shall' thenceforth be deemed part of the public street and shall be vested in the municipality. Clause (c) of sub-s. (3) of s. 118' provides that the amount of compensation shall be determined in- the manner provided by s. 198 which shall be paid by the muni- cipality to the owner of any land added to a street under cl. (b) of sub-s. ( 3). Section 114 ( 1) of the Act provides that it shall' be lawful for a municipality to Jay out and make new pubJic· streets to construct tunnels and other works subsidiary to public- streets; to widen, open, enlarge or otherwise improve, and to tum. ' divert, discontinue or stop up any public street. · On a review of these provisions it is dear that the municipality under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, had the power to acquire land needed for municipal purposes including widening, opening, enlarging or otherwise improving any public street or municipal road. The municipality laid down a line of the street : after the line of the street was laid down, it was open to the muni reconstruct any cipality to decline permission to construct or building on the land and the lands were to be deemed added to the street. But the municipality did permit construction on the lands. The provisions of cl. (b) of s. 118(3) were therefore not a_ttracted. For the purpose of widen-ing the street, the municipa lity had the power under s. 114 to purchase the land, and under s. 52 the municipality could request the local Government take action for compulsory acquisition of the land and for vesting the same in the municipality. Counsel for the appellants urged that the power confe.ued upon the municipality could only be exercised when there was any ''hindrance to the permanent or temporary acquisition" by the municipality of any land required f~r the purposes of the Act, and since there is no proof of such h1~drance, all the proceedings for acquisition must be deemed In our judgment, the argument is misconceived. Section void. 212 SUPREME COURT llEPOllTS (1968] 3 S.C.R. 52 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, authorises the municipality to purchase property required for th~ purpose of the Act by private treaty or to approach the Government for com pulsory acquisition of for a v.ublic purpose. Section 52 merely sets out alternative modes of acquiring pro perty : it does not provide that before a Municipal Borough may move the Government to acquire land under the Land Acquisi. ti on Act, the Borough should have made attempts , to purchase .the land by private treaty and have failed in that attempt. In .any case, the power of the appropriate Government under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to notify land needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose is not subject to the restriction that when the public purpose is of the municipality, the municipality has attempted to purchase the land by private treaty and has fa.iled in that attempt. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that whenever the land is needed for a public purpose or is likely to be needed for a public purpose, the Government may resort to the machinery provided under the Act for acquiring the land. Where the public purpose is the purpose of a local autho rity and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are put in force for acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority, s. 50 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the charges of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from.such fund. There is no other bar statu tory or otherwise to the acquisition of the land for purposes of a In issuing the notification under s. 4 of the Land municil'ality. Acquisition Act, the appropriate Government is therefore not prevented, merely because the municipality has not attempted to acquire the land by private treaty. There wa.s, therefore, no con dition precedent to the acquisition of the land before a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued which was not romplied with. The contention that the proceeding for making of his award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was invalid has also no substance. The appellants as lessees of the structures had no right in the land on which the structures stood. The structures 'belonged to the owners of the land, and were allowed to be put up after the date of the notification under s. 4 of the Land Acqui ·sition Act was issued, on the undertaking that no compensation shall be claimed in respect of the structures. The appellants ·were not on the lands at the date of the notifica!ion under s. 4, and being tenants of the structures they acquired, prima facie, no 'interest in the lands. Even assuming that they had acquired, by virtue of their respective tenancies, any interest in the lands, their remedy was to approach the Land Acquisition authorities It may be pointed .out -claiming apportionment of compensation. A B c D E F G H AMBALAL V. MUNICIPAL COOPERATION (Shah, J.) 213 A that this contention was not raised before·the High Court and has been raised for the first time in this Court. B c D E F G The last argument raised by counsel for the appellants is, in our judgment futile. The notification issued by the Government of Bombay under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was by opera tion of sub-s. ( 3) conclusive evidence that the land was needed for a public purpose. No inquiry was thereafter permissible that the land was not needed for a public purpose. It is true that no stegs were immediately taken by the Land Acquisition Officer authorities to make awards of compensation and to take possession of the lands. But the reason apparently was that tlie municipality was still trying to purchase the land by private treaty and when it was found that it could not purchase the lands, the Land Acqui sition Officer was requested to expedite the determination of com pensation. We are unable to bold that there is any evidence that the Government of Bombay issued the notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, not for the bona fide purpose of acquisition, but with the object of pegging down prices so that the lands may when needed be obtained at those rates in future. The land was within the line of the street and could not without the sanction of the municipality be put to any profitable use. If either the land owners or the tenants were aggrieved by the delay. it was open to them to claim writs or orders compelling the State Government to complete the assessment and payment of compen sation. We are not hereby to be understood as suggesting that after issue of the notifications under ss. 4 & 6 the appropriate Government would be justified in allowing the matters to drift and to take in hand the proceeding for assessment of compensa tion whenever they think it proper to do. It is intended by the scheme of the Act that the notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act must be followed by a proceeding for determina tion of compensation without any unreasonable delay. But on the facts of the present case, it does not appear that there was any scope for holding that with a view to prevent the land owners or the persons claiming derivative title from them from getting the benefit of the rise in prices, notifications under ss. 4 and 6 were.issued without any intention to take steps for acquisition of the lands. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. One hearina fee in· all the appeals. Separate costs will be paid by the appellant~ to the Corporation and to the State Government. H Y.P. Appeals dismissed_