STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus LEELA JAIN

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 16-09-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

276 
STATE OF RAJASTIIAN 
v. 
LEELA JAIN 
September 16, 1964 
(A. K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND 
R. S. BACHAWAT
0 JJ.) 
Raiastlian City Mtmicipe1l Appeals (Regula1ion) Act (3 of 1950). 
1· 
4( I), provUo--State Government-Revisional Jurisdic1ion--Scopt of. 
The respondent made certain constructions on her land in the city of 
J:1ipur. 
Those constructions were in variation of the plans approved by 
lhc 
Municipality. 
As they were completed in spite of an order by the 
President of the Municipal Board to stop unauthorised constructions. he 
ordeced the matter to be compounded by the respondent paying a fine. 
No appeal was provided by the Jaipur Municipal Act against such an 
order, and so, a neighbour, who was affected by the constructions moved 
the Slate Government and the latter, acting under the pro><iso to a. 4(1) 
of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950, set 
a>idc the order of the President. The respondent then moved the High 
Court under Art. 226 o( the Constitulion and the High Court held that 
the order of the President was not subject to the rcvisional jurisdiction 
of 1he Stale 
Government. The State thereupon. appealed to lhe Sup-
r1:me Court. 
HELD : The appeal should be allowed. 
The main purpose of the Act is 10 crea1e a uniform forum for 
dealing with municipal appeal•, 
that is, appeals lying under a municipal 
la"' to an authority other than a municipal authority, because such ap-
peJls, when provided for, lay to different authorities in different cities 
of the Stale of Rajasthan. 
Under s. 3 of the Act the appeal, if provided 
for. wa.< to he dispa.ed of by the Commissioner. The order of the Com-
missioner and the order of a municipal authority, where no appeal was 
provided for as in the instant case, would be final subject to revision 
by the State Government under the proviso to s. 4( 1) of the Act. 
II 
would not he proper, when the words of the statute are clear, to take 
lhe preamble and the long 1itle into consideration and come to the con-
clusion that it could not have been intended to permit the Government 
10 interfere in municipal affairs, especially when such an 
interpretation 
h.- 1hc effect of omilling or deleting the words "order passed by a 
!itf unicipat authority" in the proviso, when they have a meaning and 
significance in their normal connotation. [278H; 281E. H; 282C-F; 283H; 
235B-D]. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISD!CllON : Civil Appeal No. 245 of 
1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 7, 1958 of the Rajasthan High Coun in D. B. Civil 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Writ Peti1ion No. 65 of 1957. 
u 
M. M. Tewari. K. (. Jain and R. N. 
Sachthey, for the 
appellant. 
.. 
.... 
A 
STATE v. LEELA JAIN (Ayyangar I.) 
277 
S. P. Sinha, V. Kumar and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ayyangar J. 
A very short question regarding the proper 
construction of the proviso to s. 4( 1) of the Rajasthan City 
B Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950, is involved in this 
appeal which comes before us by virtue of special leave granted 
by this Court. 
The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly these : The 
respondent Mrs. Leela Jain is the owner of a plot of land in the 
C city of Jaipur. Under,the relevant provisions of the city of Jaipur 
Mun!cipal Act, 1943, she was required to submit to the Municipal 
Council plans for erecting constructions on her plot, obtain their 
approval and make the constructions in accordance with the 
~auctioned plans. She submitted her plans, which were sanctioned 
D 
but it was stated that during the course of the constructions she 
made certain variations from the plan as approved by the Municipal 
authorities. A neighbour of hers, one D. D. Goswami, alleged that 
the variations made by the respondent in carrying out the con-
. structions of her house prejudicially affected him. On the basis of 
his representation the Municipal Council initiated an inquiry as 
E a result whereof a report was submitted to it in which a findin~ 
was recorded that the respondent had effected variations from the 
sanctioned plan. 
The President of the Municipal Board con-
considered the report and passed an order on September 19, 1956 
directing the respondent to stop the unauthorised constructions 
immediately. 
It was stated that notwithstanding this order the 
F 
respondent continued the constructions 
and completed them. 
When this was brought to the notice of the Municipal

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