LexAMBALAL PURSHOTTAM ETC. versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A AMBALAL PURSHOTIAM ETC. 11. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. February 19, 1968 B [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MlTTEll, JJ.) c D E F G H Land Acquisition Act--Slruclures made after s. 4 notice, on urtderta/...- ing b,v owners not to claim conipensation-TenGnts, if can choUengc- Acquisition for Municipality, if any restrictions. Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (Born. Act 18 of 1925) ss. 52, 114--Powers of Municipality to acquire-Whet/1er attentpt to purchase by private treaty prerequisite. For widening a street, the respondent-municipality requested the State Government to acquire the lands within the "line of the street" prescribed by the Municipality.· After the State Government issued notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the owners of the lands put up temporary structures upon the lands with the pormission of'the Municipality on giving an undertaking that they would not claim compensation for those structures in the land acquisition proceedings. The structures were let out t.o the appellants. Notifications were issued under s. 6 and compensation payable de!ermiued. When attempts were made to take possession of the land acquired, the tenants-appellants, moved writ petitions in the High Court The High Court rejected the petitions. Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD : By the compulsory acquisition for a public purpose, subject to payment of compensation, no fundameutat rights guaranteed under Arts~ 19 and 31(2) of the Constitution were infringed. The lands were properly notified for acquisition. The compensation payable in respect of the lands was determi~. If there was any grievance which the appellants were entitled to raise in respect of the compensation determined as payable, their remedy lay in approaching the Courts competent to determine that question~ [210 D-E] For the purpose of widening the street, th~ Municipality had the pawcr under s. 114 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 to purchase land, and under s. 52 of the Act the Municipality could request the local Government to take action for compulsory acquisition of the land and for vesting the same in the Municipality. The power of the appropriate Government under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to notify land needed or likely to he needed for a public purpose is not subject to the restriction that when the public purpose is of a municipality the municipality h'"' attempted to purchase the land by private treaty and has failed in thot attempt. [211 G, 212 B.C] 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 ur.der s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on the undertaking that no compensation shall be claimed in resP"..ct of the structures. The appel- la~ts were not on the lands al the date of the notification under s. 4, and bemg tenants of the structures they acquired, prima facie, no intemit in the lands. Even assunung that they had acquired, by virtue of their res- pective tenancies, an interest in the lands, their remedy was to approachi 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1968]3 5.C.R. the Land Acquisiti'on Authorities for claiming apportionment of compen· sation. [212 G, HJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1369 to 1407 and 1564 to 1578 of 1967. Appeals by Certificates/Special leave from the judgment and order dated February 1966 of the Gujarat High Court, in Special Civil Application Nos. 912, 916, 918, 920, 922, 923, 925, 929, 930, 931, 938 and 941 of 1964, and 917, 926, 927, 928, 932. 933, 934, 921, 935, 942, 924, 939 and 940 of 1964 respective!)-. Vlthalbhai Patel and S. S. Shukla, for the appellants (in all the appeals). I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1 (in C.As. Nos. 1396 to 1407 of 1967). Purshottam Trikamdas and /, N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1 (in C.As. Nos. 1564 to 1578 of 1967). · R. H. Dhebar, S. K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayyar, for respon- dents Nos. 2 and 3 ,in all the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, 1. On June 6, 1941, the Municipal Borough of Ahmc- dabad prescribed a "line of the street" along an important thoroughfare in the town of Ahmedabad and resqlved that steps be taken for compulsory acquisition of lands falling "within the line." On June 9, 1941 a notification was issued by the ·Gov- ernment of Bombay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.