THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD versus BEN HIRABEN MANILAL

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 05-04-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
-B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
676 
THB MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF 
AHMED ABAD 
v. 
BEN HIRABEN MANILAL 
April 5, 1983. 
[D.P. MADON AND SABYASACHl MUKITARJI, JJ.] 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Co1poratiori Act, 1949-sections 260 anu 478-
scope oi-No reference made to. section 478 in notice-Notice, if invalid-Wrong 
reference in show cause notice, if would vitiate the notice 
lntetp;·etation -language of a p/ovision· falls s/;o,-t of object of legislature-
Court, if could give an extended 1neaning to words. 
In fesponse to- the notice issued to ht>r under section 260 (1) (a) of the 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 the respondent contended 
that the impugned conStruction of walls without the sanction of the mQ.nicipal 
corporation was in existence \1/hen she had purchased the pren1ises. She then 
filed a suit in the Cily Civil Court and obtained permanent injuction restraining 
the corporation from removing the_in1pugnt.'.d unauthorised construction. The 
decree of the lower court was affinned by a single Judge of the High Court in 
appeal and in further appeal a Division Bench held that the impugned notice' 
was beyond the powers of the Corporation in that a notice under the section 
could only be issued against the pei;son who had constructed the building or 
who was constructing the building. 
On. further appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
appeliant ·that section 260(1) (a) read in cOnjunction with the latter part of 
section 478 en1powered the Corporation to take action for demolition or 
removal of unauthorised constr_uction both against the person who had 
commenced or wa~ constructing the building as well as the person who wa~ 
the owner of the building which had been constructed or erected without 
permission in violation of the laws. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : Although the impugned notice was not issued unde_r section 478, 
it cannot be said that the notice was unauthorised or illegal. The question in 
this case being one of construction of a provision of a statute that construction 
must be made as to be in conformity with its other provisions and the provisions 
must be read as a whole. Section 478 can be relied upon in support of the 
notice under section 260(1) (a). (680 H; 681 A-BJ 
' 
.) 
MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. HIRABEN.(S. Mukharji. J.) 
677 
lt is well settled that a wrong reference to the power under which action 
was taken by the Government would not per se vitiate that action if it could be 
A 
justified under some other power under which government can lawfully do that 
act. [6Jl D-E] 
L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ambala 
Gantt. & Anr. (1961] 41 I.T.R. 12@ 16, Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of 
Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (1964] 521.T.R. 583 ; and Nani Gopal Biswas v. The 
Municipalitv of Howrah, [1958] S.C.R. 774@ 779 relied on. 
Pitamber Vajirshet v. Dhondu Navalapa, [1888] l.L.R. 12 Bombay, 486@ 
489, approved. 
It is equally well settled that even where the usual meaning of a language 
falls short of the whole object of the legislature, a more extended meaning may 
be given to the words if these are fairly susceptib!e of it. But the construction 
must' not be strained to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning 
of the words. [682 CJ 
In the instant case if the prov1s1ons of section 260 {1) (a) are read in 
conjunction with the latter part of the provisions of section 478 which stipulates 
specifically that if tte person carrying out such work or doing such things is 
not tfie owner at the tiine of such notice, the ?wner at the tirr.e of giving sueɋ 
notice shall also be liable for carrying ou,t the requisition of the Commissioner, 
it is clear that the action for demolition or removal Can be taken by the 
Corporation exercising powìr under the provisions of the Act against persons 
who had not themselves built the impugned portion. These provisions are 
devised to regulate the building construction fOr the safety, health and well­
being of the inhabitants of the 1nunicipality. It would be anomalous to hold 
that if a building was constructed illegally or in an unauthorised manner action 
could only be taken against the person who did the illegal act· but that after the 
construction was passed over to others the building would enjoy imn1unity 
from any action in respect of the same. [681 F˼H; 682 A & E] 
CIVIL APPELLA.TE 
JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
744 of 
1978. 
• 
Appeal by Special leave from· the Judg

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