LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ,JABALPUR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'I 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 135 MDNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ,JABALPUR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B.' GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHoo, N. RAJAGOPMA AYYANGAR and T. L VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) Pleariing-Strict ariherence necessary-A men<lment must be formally marie-Petitioner pleading tram/er by StaJe Government --Counsel for responrient conceriing transfer by Central Government-Duty of Court. Acting under s. 38 (l) (f) of the C. P. Municipalities Act 1922, the P1ovincial Government, with the sanction of the Government of India, transferred <ertain Nazul Lands to the Municipal Commit tee to be used for the purposes of a garden • The l 922 Act was repealed by the City of Jabalpur Corporat- ion Act, 1948, which replaced the Municipiil'Committee by the Jabalpur Corporation. Under s. 81 of the Corporation Act the State Government issued a notification. notifying that a portion of this land needed for making a road "stood divested from the Corporation. The Corporation filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the notification. On a concession made by the counsel for the State that the transfer of the land had been made by the Central Government the High Court held that the notification could not be sustained under s, 31 which was applicable only to transfers made by the State Government But the High Court sustained the notification under s, 33 of the repealed 1922 Act, relying upon the saving ins. 3 ( 1) of the Corporation Act. Held, that the transfer of the land in fact had been made by the State (Provincial) Government and the notification was fully justified by the provisiom of s. 81 of the Corporation Act. There was no basis on which the High Court could have based its assumption that the transfer was by the Central Government. 1'he allegations in the writ petition proceeded on the basis that the transfer was by the State Government, On the pleadings the appellant ought not to have been per- mitted to put forward a case that the State Government was not the transferor of the property. To confine a party to his pleadings particulaily in respect of facts, is dictated not merely by the need for orderliness but for avoiding surprise to the othn party. Save in exccptional_cases, parties shauld be hdd ~ strictly to 11th plrad·'.ngs, and if there is need to amend them, the Court shoulcl insist c,11 fo1mal amu.clments being affected. AJ'f'il 16. 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] In the present case, on the terms of the order transferring the land it was clear that the transfer was made by the Provincial Government. C!YU. APPELLATE JumsDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1962. Appeal by special-leave from the judgment and order dated February 3, 1961, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M. P. No. 139 of 1960. N. C. Chatt,erjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for appellanta. B. Ben and J. N. Shroff, for respondent No. I. B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 2. 1962. April 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J.-By a communication dated Afril 5, 1930, from the Secrotary to the Government o the Central Provinces addressed to the Commis- sioner Jabalpur Division, certain Nazul land was made available to tb.e Municipal Committee of Jabalpur. In this letter the Secretary stated : "! am directed by the Governor in Coun- ..:il with the previous sanction of tile Govern- ment of India to oommunicate the following orders of the Government of tho Central Provinoes :- Under Seotion 38( I )(f) of the Central Provinoes Municipalities Act, 1~22, Govern· ment is pleased to transfer to the Munioipal Committee, Jubbulpore, free of premium and ground rent nazul land measuring .............. . of the Jabbulpore town. The land shall vest in the Municipal Committee subject to the following conditions : (1) The land shall be used only for the pur pose of a gardfD and no part of it , • • - ., ' r 2 s.o.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 13-7 shall be used for a.ny other purpose with- out the previous sanction of the Local Government. (2) If condition I is broken the land shall be liable to be divested under sec- tion 38(2) and resumed by Government a.nd no compensation whatsoever shall be payable to the Municipal Committee upon such resumption. (3) If the land is resumed by Go- vernment for ·--any Government purpose the provisions of Section 38(3) will apply." Sub-sections (2) & (3) of s. 38 referre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.