LexBABUBHAI & CO. & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 614 BABUBHAI & CO. & ORS. v, STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS April 9, 1985 [V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND V. KHALID, JJ.] Bo1nbay Town Planning Act 1954, ~· 54 read with Rule 27 of Bon1bay Town Planning Rules 1955-Provision for s111nm.~ry e~iction of lands required for public purpose-Absence of a cOrrective 1nachinery by way of appeal or revision- validity of. The respondent-State issued notice u/s. 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 (for short the Act) read with Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 (for ~hort the Rules) to the appellants to hand over possession of their lands lying within the limits of .Borough Municipality (.t Ahmedabad to the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad as the same had vested absolutely in the Municipal Corporation free from all encumbrance u/s. :53 (a) of the Act and were required for construction of roads and other public purposes. The appeallants challenged before the High Courf under Art. 226 tbe constitutional validity of s. 54 of the Act and Rule 27 of the Rules. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding ; (i) that the rights of tht~ local authority (to own and obtain po5session of such lands~ wi.th the corn:sponding liability of the occupants to suffer eviction therefrom did not exist under the general law prior to the making of the Final Scheme, that such rights and liabilities were created for the first time by the Final Scheme which is te> be read as part of the Act and since the Act while creating these new ri!!:hts and liabilities provided for a special and particular remedy for enforcing them under s. 54, the remedy of summary eviction must· be held to be an exclusive remedy and the liability to eviction arising under s. 53 (a) or (b) cannot be enforced by ·the ordinary remedy of a suit ; (ii) that s. 54 conferred upon the local authority a quasi-judicial power andnot administrative power and as such it was bound, in conformity with the principh:s of natural justice, to give an opportunity of hearing to the occupants before taking the threatened action of summary eviction and therefore no question of section being bad in law arose ; and (iii) that since Rule 27 did not contain any express exclusion of such hearing and since s. f54 iimpliedly required the observance of principles of natural justice on the part of 1the local authority llABtlBHAI & CO. v. GtJJAR.At 6tS while exerc1s1ng the power of summary eviction. the said requirement must also be read in Rule 27 and so read the Rule could not be regarded as ultra vires the section. A Jn appeals to this Court, the appellants contended that even proceeding on the basis that s. 54 impliedly required a hearing to be given and consequen- tly such a requircn1ent could be read into Rule 27 which was a subordinate B piece of legislation, there was no c6rrective machinery provided for by way of an appeal or revision to any superior authority against an adverse order that may be passed by the local authority acting under Rule 27 and in the absence of any such corrective machinery the entire provision must be held to be bad in l~w and therefore the impugned notices served on the appellants sould be quashed. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : (1) Mere absence of a corrective machinery by way 'of appeal or revision by itself would not make the Power unreasonable or arbitrary, much less would render the provision invalid. Regard will have to be had to several factors, such as, on whom the power is conferred whether on a high official or a petty officer, what is the nature of the power.whether . the exercise thereof depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the authority or body on whom it is conferred or is it to be exercised objectively by reference to some existing facts or tests, whether or not it is a quasi-judicial power requiring that authority or body to observe principles of natural justice and make a speaking order etc. ; the last mentioned factor particularly .ensures application of mind on the part of the authority or body only to pertinet or germane mate- rial on the record excluding the extreneous and irrelevant and also subjects the order of the authority or body to a judicial review under the writ jurisdiction o-f the Court on grounds of perversity, extraneous influence, malafides and other blatant infirmities. Moreover all these facts will have to be considered in the light of the scheme of the enactment and the purpose int
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.