STATE OF GUJARAT versus PATEL BAVA KARSAN & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1087 · Decided: 22-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
• 
' 
• 
Ii'-
108'7 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
A 
v. 
PATEL BAVA KARSAN & ORS. 
February 22, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P, S, KAILASAM AND AD. KosHAL, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India 1950, Artich'.~ 14 and 19 & Gujarat Ji,funicipality Act 
Sections 233 llltd 236-Statute empowering eviction from municipal pre1nises-
An appeal to go1·ernment against the order of eviction provided-Constitutional 
validity of prorisfons. 
Section 233 of the Gujarat Municipality Act 'empowered the Chief Officer 
of the ~iunicip[l.fity to evict persons from municipal premises. 
Respondent No. 1 in the appeals was required by a notice in pur8uance uf 
the provisions of section 233(1) of the Act to hand OVer possession of a piece 
of land to the J\iunicipality on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupa~ 
tion thereof\ 
The respondent assailed the notice· in proceedings under Ar_tic.l'e 
226 of the Constitution, and the only point in controversy was '\vhether or not 
section 233 of ihe Act under which the proceedings for eviction were taken wa~ 
oonstitutional!y v&lid. 
The High Court in view of a previous decision of that 
court held th<1t section 233 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution wa~ 
· ultra vires. 
In th~ appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of th'e respondents : 
(1) that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's case was not correctly decided 
because though in Chhaganlal Maganlal's case there was a right to appe::il 
t0 
a Civi1 Court and the right to take evidence was given by the Statute concerned, 
in the former. the relevant statute contained no such provisions, and (2) that 
the provisions of the Gujarat Act were violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeals, 
c 
D 
E 
HEtD: (l)(i) The judgment of the High Court is set aside a.nd the order 
F 
of the Chief Officer dated 9-3-66 affirmed, 
[l090G] 
(ii) Jn the case of Northern Indian Catererl Private Limited v. 
State of 
Punjab and others. [1967] 3 SCR, 399, this Court while considering a statute 
\vhos'e provisions \Vere almost similar to those of section 233 of the Gujarat Act 
took the same vie\V .as the High Court and struck down the Statute. This decision 
held the field until it \\'as ultimately overruled in the case of ChhaRanlal Magan-
G 
la/, [1975] 1 SCR l. In a later decision in Ahmedabad Municipal (,'orporatiun 
and others v. Ra1nan Lal Govi11d Ram am! others, [1975] 3 SCR 935, this Court 
while fo11owing the case of Chhaganlal Magan/al upheld a provision of the 
Bomb&y Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1963 
\Vhich was in pari mnteria \Vith section 233 of the Gujnraf Act. 
[1090A-C] 
(iii) Once the property belonging to the Gov~rnment or semi-Government 
bodies is held to fall within a particular class and therefore a reasonable classi-
fication, \Vhether a civil rem'edy is given or not would not be violative of Article 
14 of the Constitution, [10900-F] 
15-138SCI/80 
H 
A 
B 
c 
1088 
SUPREME COURT IiEPORTS 
[1980) 2 S.C.R .. 
(iv) Under St:ction 236, the respondents have a right to file· an appeal to the 
Government against the impugned order of eviction. ·rhis section also contains 
a specific p:-ovision under v.hich the delay can be condoned if sufficient cau1e 
is shown to the sutisfaction of the appellate authority nan1ely th'e Governnt:!nt. 
It will be open to the respondents to file an appeal which \v'ill be di.;;posed ot by 
the Government in accordance v1ith lrnv. 
[10900-H, 1091A] 
(2) The contention that the provisions of the Gujarat Act v.rere violative 
of .Article 19 of the Constitution was expressly considered and negatived 
in 
Af1111edabad .\1unicipa/ Corpnro!ion & ors. v. Rl1111anlal Govindara1n & Ors. 
[1090E-FJ 
CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTJON : Civil Appeal Nos. 
1596 and 
1224 of 1970. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31-1-1970 of the Gujarat 
High Court in SCA No. 438/66. 
T. U. Mehta, D. N. Mishra and K. J. John for the appellant 
CA 1224/70 & RR. 1596/70. 
. 
S. C. Patel and M. N. Shrvfj for the Appellant CA No. 1596/70. 
D 
M. K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar for Respondent No. 1 CA 
E 
F 
G 
l'lo. 1224/70. 
S. C. Patel and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No. 2 CA No. 1224/ 
70. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. 
This appeal by certificate is directed against a 
judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 31-1-1970 issuing a writ of 
mandamus to the Rajkot Municipality directing it to desist from 
enforcing a notice dated 9-3-1966 served on respondent N

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