MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 27-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

8 
A 
c 
D 
£ 
F 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TIIE CITY OF 
AHMEDABAD & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
March 27, 1972 
1 
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., A. N, GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR 
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
The Government of India Act, 1935-S. 299-Constitutio11 of India 
Act, Art. 31-Compensatlon-Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation 
Act, 1949r-Ss. 212, 216--Acquisition building or part of building 
within "regular liTle of.public" street-Section if prescribes the principles 
and manner of tdetermination of conipensation. 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Ai:t, 1949-Ss. 412, 216--
Constitutionality of. 
Section 210 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Cotporation 
Act, 
1949 authorises tbe Municipal Commissioner to prescribe the "regular 
line of a public street". If a building or a part of building is within the 
regular line of a public street the Commissioner may undi:r s. 212 re-
quire the owner to pull down the building or pan thereof, which is 
within the regular line of the street. 
On his failure tO do 
so, 
the 
Commissioner is entitled to pull down the offending part of. the builaing 
at the cost of the owner. The land so vacated is to vest in the cor-
poration. Secti0n 216(i) lays down that compensation .shall be paid by 
the Commission~r to the owner "for any loss" which the owner 
may 
sustain and for "any expenst:" incurred by suc:h owner in consequ~D.ce 
of the <irder made by the Comm.issioner. 
Proviso (i) to secltion 216 
prescribes that "any increa9~ or decrease in 
the~ value of the remainder 
of the property of which the building or land so acquired formed part, 
likely to accrue from the setback to the regular line of the street shall 
be taken into consi<bration and allowed for in determining the amount of 
such compensation. 
Under proviso (ii) "if any such increase in value 
exceeds the amount of loss sustained or expenses incurred by the said 
owner, the Commissioner may recover from such owner half-the amount 
df such excess as betterment charge.". The Act gives the owner who is 
aggrieved by the amount of compensation offered to him, the right to 
appoal to the judge of the Small Causes Court and to the District judge 
in second appeal. 
Acting under s. 212 the Commissioner issued notices to the respon-
dents to pull down parts of their building lying within the regular line 
of the street. The respondents filed writ petitions contending that section 
G 
'212 was unconstitutional in so far as it violated the provisions of section 
299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and also of article 31 of 
the Constitution. It was urged that the Act did not (i) provide for 
payment of compensation for properly 
acqui~.,d and (ii) specify 
the 
principles on which and the manner in whi<lh the compensation was tc' 
be determined. The validity of section 212 and other allied sections was 
also challeng,d on the ground that they infringed articles 14 and 19 
of the Constitution. The High Court, upholding the challenge 
unde'r 
H 
s. 299 of the Government of India. Act, held that the Act proviqed foe 
payment of compensation 'out did not specify 
the principles on which 
and the manner in which the comp~nsation was to be determined. In 
view of this finding the High Court did not consider the challenge 
on 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] l S.C.R. 
. the \>1ber. grounds. 
In this Court it was argued that the two provisos to 
sub-Sectio11 (i) of s. 216 if given effect to nullified the direction in sub-
section .(I) for payment of compensation and when reduced in the Con-
tingencies visualized in the provisos the compensation turned out to 
be 
illusory. 
Allowing the appeal, 
A 
l'IELD : that the order passed by the High Court had to be set ao;i<I 
B 
and the proceedings transmitted to the High Court for disposal in acC'or-
dance with the law. 
· 
. (i) The High Court was right in holding that the. ,-\ct provided fc.r 
payment of compensation for property acquired under s. 212. sectkm 
216 .and 389 rea\f too,dher make it clear that full indemnification in ferm; 
of money for the loss caused is to be made to the owrie\' of the pro-
perty or other· interest affected by reason of the exercise of the power 
C 
under s. 212. that the- compensation may in some rare contingencies 
be very much reduced after taking into acc.ount the value of the benefit 
conferred on the owner by reason the widening of the street is no ade-
quate reason to hold that the Act does not provide for payment of. com-
peasation. 
Bo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.