LexTRUSTEES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF CALCUTTA versus CHANDRA SEKHAR MALLICK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l A B c D E F G H 136 TRUSTEES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF CALCUTTA v. CHANDRA SEKHAR MALLICK & ORS. May 6, 1977 [M. H. BEG, C.J., Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER, N. L. UNTWALIA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] Calcutta llnprovement Act, 1911-Sec. 78A to 78G-Whether unconstitu- r tional-If suffers from the vice of excessive delegation-RuJes 11 to 21, if 1' ultra vires the A ct. The respondents were the owners of buildings situated in a street known as Fire Lane in the city of Calcutta. The Board of Trustees for the Jmprovement of Calcutta in exercise of the power conferred under s. 39(c) passed the neces- sary resolution and proceeeded to frame a street scheme for the area which included Fire Lane as also the buildings belonging to the respondent'i. The notice containing the requisite particulars was pub!ished by the Board. The respondents submitted their objections but the Board after bearing the respon- dents rejected the objections and applied to the State Government for sanction under s. 47. Ultimately, the State Government granted sanction under s. 48. The Board was of the opinion that as a result of the making of the street scheme, lands of the respondents which were comprised in the street scheme would increase in value. The scheme, therefore, contained a declaration that a better- ment fee shall be payable by the respondents in respect of the increases in the value of their respective lands. The Board gave a notice of the proposed assessment of the betterment fee under s. 78B (1} and then proceeded under s. (2) of that section to assess the betterment fee payable by the respondent. The respondents dissented from the assessment made on them and the matter was thereupon referred for determination by arbitrators as contemplated under section 78(B)(4), and an award was made. The respondents filed writ petitions challenging the validity of the award made by the arbitrators. Section 39 provides that whenever the Board is of the opinion that for the purpose, inter alia, of creating new or improving existing means of communication and facilities for traffic, it is expedient to lay out new streets 'or to alter existin~ street, the Board may pass a resolution to that effect and then proceed to frame a street scheme for such area as it may think fit. Section 43 requires the Board to give a notice mentioning where the map of the area and a statement of the land which is proposed to be acquired may be inspected. The said notice is to be published for general public under s. 45. Individual notice is to be served on every person whose name appears in Municipal Assessment Book as being primarily liable to pay the owner's share of the consolidated rate. Under s. 45(2), a person dissenting from the recovery of betterment fee has to state his reasons. Under s. 47 the Board after hearing all persons making dissent may either abandon the scheme or accept it with such modifications and thereafter submit it to the State Gover11.ment containing reasons given for the dissent. The Board is reqnired to publish notice of the fact that a particular ~cheme has been submitted to the Government for its sanction. The State Government may then refuse to sanction the: scheme or sanction it with or without any modifications. The ;rincipal ground on which the validity of the Award of the Arbitrators was impugned in the writ petitioners was that section 78A to section 78G of the Act were ultra vires and void and that R.ulcs 11 to 21 of the Rules were also invalid. The High Court upheld the challenge and -;truck down section 78B to s. 78G and Rule! 11 to 21, as invalid. Allowing the appeal, HELD (I) The view taken by the High Court on the validity o! section 78A to 78G is clearly erroneous. The High Court thought that the sections suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power because for determining what land should bear the burden of betterment fee, arbitrary and uncontrolled power hM been given to the Trust and its Engine<n either · CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUSTEES v. c. S. MALLICK !37 (Bhagwati, J.) include or not to include within the scheme lands which arc required for the execution thereof. The reasoning of the High Court is clearly based on an erroneous premise. Section 39 lays down the factors which would guide the Board in deciding which area should be included in the scheme. It is only when the Bo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.