GULAM MUSTAFA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 875 · Decided: 18-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
875 
GULAM MUSTAFA & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
September 18, 1975 , 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.l 
. flyder?bad Lcofld Acquisition Act-Acquisition of land for a village market-
lf a public purpose-Excess land. sold to o hdusing colony-If acquisition ma/a 
fide. 
Certain ·lands belonging to the appellants were compulsorily acquired under-
the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act for running a country fair or market 
(1nDndha). 
A·fter the acquisition, the municipality parcelled out the excess land 
and sold it for a housing colony. The High Court dismissed the appellants' 
writ petition, in li111ine. 
On app-cal to this Court it wa9 contended that the acquisition was not for 
a public purpose and that it was 1nala fide. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (l)(a) Providingi a village market.is an obvious .public purpose. 
D 
[876C-Dl 
E 
F 
G 
( b) A ntondha is a country fair or village market. 
Market is defined in. 
s. 2(20) of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act in wide terms and s. 72 
of the said Act enumerate9 the purposes for which property may be vested in 
a municipality. This includes markets. It inexorably follows from a joint 
reading of Ss. 2(20) and 72(a) of the District Municipalities Act that the 
purpose of providing a mark_et for the townsfolk falls within the oowers of 
the municipality. 
[876G-H] 
(2)(a) Striking down. any Act for nwfa fide exercise of poWer is a judiciai 
reser..,.'ed power exercised lethally, but rarely. The charge of mala fides agaimt 
public bodies and authorities is more 'easily made than made out. 
It is the 
last refuge of a losing litigant. 
[876D] 
(b) What has to be established is nwla fide exercise of power by the State 
Govemment although the beneficiary is the municipality. There is no. evidence 
of 111afus ani1nus in Government. 
[877B] 
(c) Apart from the fact that a horn~ing colony is a public necessity, onoo 
the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the municipality how 
it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the 
basis for invalid~ting the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which 
a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring 
authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the dcclara-
lion. 
[877C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC'!'.ION : Civil Appeal No. 675 of 1968. 
From the judgmt\nt and order dated the 19th January, 1967 of 
the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 16 of 1967. 
s. J. Deshpande and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. 
H 
M. C. Bhandare and M. N. Shroff, for respondent nos. 1. 2 and 4. 
D. V. Patel, K. Laxmanrao and S. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent 
no. 3 
· 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] I s.c.R. · 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KR1sHNA IYER, J. 
Brevity will do no inequity in this 
appeal 
where three points were urged but only ()Ille 
survives for 
serious 
scanning. 
The subject matter is the validity of land acquisition pro-
ceedings whereby a Municipality compulsorily purchased the appel-
lant's land for the stated public purpose of running a country 
lair 
A 
or market (mondha) under the Hyderaba!d Land Acquisition Act (for 
R 
short, the Act) which is closely similar to the Land Acquisition Act, 
1923 (Central Act). 
The first charge is that the High Court dis-
missed the Writ Petition in limine. 
Seven years after the 1968 event, 
we cannot consider sending back the case even if there be justice in 
the submission. 
We have therefore heard counsel Shri Deshpande 
on his substantive grievances. 
The second contention is that there 
is no 'public purpose' to support the acquisition which is 
allegedly 
C 
ultra vires the Municipality's powers. 
We disagree. 
Providing 
a 
village market is an obvious public purpose and a municipal facility. 
The fast plea which has been pressed strenuously is that the acquisi-
tion exercise is ba\l being ma/a fide-an uphill task to 
make 
out 
against a public body. Was this colourable exercise of power? 
Striking down any act for mala fide exercise of power. is a judicial 
reserve pQwer exercised lethally, but rarely. 
The charge of mala-
fides against public bodies and authorities is more easily made than 
made out. It is the last refuge of a! losing litigant. 
Even so, we 
will examine the merits oil' the contention here from the point of 
view of the serious factors placed for our consideration. 
Was .this acquisition done 
colore o

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