FARID AHMED ABDUL SAMAD & ANR. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 29-07-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

FARID AHMED ABDUL SAMAD & ANR. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF 
AHMEDABAD & ANR. 
July 29, 1976 
71 
A 
[Y. V. CUANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Cdrporations 1ct, as applied in 
Gujarat 
<(Born-' 59' of 1949), s. 284N-App/icabi!ity of s. SA, Land Acquisition Act. 
Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), s. SA-If mandatory-Effect of nonJ 
-compliance in case of beneficial scheme§. 
Section 284 (I) of Chapter VI of the 
Bombay 
Provincial 
Municipal 
Corporations Act, 1949, as applied in Gujarat, provides that if the Corporation 
C 
is satisfied that within any area in any part of a city under the Act it is 
expedient to provide housing accommodabion for the poorer classes, it shall 
cause such area to be defined on a plan and pass a resolution authorising the 
Commissioner ahd the Commissioner shal11 thereupon be empowered to provide 
such accommodation. Section 284J(a) provides that the Commissioner may, for 
such purposes, acquire any land including any buildings thereon. Section 284K ( 1) 
provides that the Commissioner may, with the sanction of the Standing Com-
mittee, be authorised to acquire the land by means of a compulsory acquisition 
order made and submitted to the State Govern.rnent and confirmed by it in 
D 
accordance with the provisions of Schedule C to the Act; ~d s. 284K(3) 
provides that the provisions of Schedule B to the Act shall have effect with 
respect to the validity and date of operation of the compulsory acquisition 
order. Clause 2, Schedule C, provides that before submitting the order to the 
State Government the Commissioner has to publish the order in the Official 
'G>zette and in three or more newspapers. The Commissioqer · has also to 
serve on persons specified in cl. 2(b) notices calling for objections etc. Clause 3 
provides that upon compliance with the provisions of els. 1 and 2 the Commis-
E 
sioner shall submit to the Standing Committee any objections received under cl. 2 
and any suggestions he may wish to make in that respect. 
Under , cl. 4, the 
Standing Committee shall, after consideration of any such objections ind sugges-
tions, make such modification in respect of such order ats it may think fit 
and the Commissioner shall thereafter submit the order, as modified by the 
Standing Committe~. to the State Government for confirmation. 
Clause 2 of 
Schedule B provides for an appeal to a Judge of the City Civil <:Court in 
Ahmedabad and elsewhere to a Judge of the District Court against the order 
of acquisition confirmed by the State Government. Section 284N referentially 
F 
incorporates in the Bombay Act certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894, as detailed in Appendix I to the Bombay Act. Accordingly all the sections 
in Part II of the Land •cquisition Act, except s. 4(1), s. 6 and s. 17(2) 
are bodily incorporated in the Bombay Act. Hence, s. SA of the Land Acquisition 
Act, which provide!> for personal hearing of the objectors to an acquisition, forms 
part of the Bombay Act. 
Jn pursuance of the authority of the Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad 
G 
the Commissioner passed an order of compulsory acquisition under s. -284J 
published it in the Official Gazette and in local newspapers, and served individual 
notices on the concerned parties. The appellants, who objected to the acguisition 
were however, not given any personal hearing by tfue Commissioner in spite 
of a request by them. The Commissioner submitted the objections with hi' 
suggestions, to the Standing Committee, and the Committee approved the order 
of compulsory acquisition. The State Government thereafter confirmed the 
order .. The appellants preferred an appeal to the City Civil ·court on the basis, 
inter alia, of the denial of personal hearing to them; 
but the 
Court held 
H 
that the principles of natural justice were saisfied, and the High Court confirmed 
the order of the City Civil Court. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
HELD : Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, is app1icable in the present case. 
It is not a case of failure of the rules of natural justice but one of non-
compliance with the mandatory provision in s. 5A; and since no personal hearing 
had been given to the appellants by the Commisisoner, the order of acquisition 
and the confirmation by the State Government are invalid. [78 G-HJ 
(1) The incorporated provisions of the Land Acquisition Act a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.