PETITIONER:
FARID AHMED ABDUL SAMAD & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/07/1976
BENCH:
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
SHINGAL, P.N.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 2095 1977 SCR (1) 71
1976 SCC (3) 719
ACT
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, as applied
in Gujarat (Bom-59 of 1949), s. 284N--Applicability of s.
5A, Land Acquisition Act.
Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), s. 5A--If
mandatory--Effect of non compliance in case of beneficial
schemes.
HEADNOTE
Section 284 (1) of Chapter VI of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as applied in Gujarat,
provides that if the Corporation is satisfied that within
any area in any part of a city under the Act it is expedient
to provide housing accommodation for the poorer classes, it
shall cause such area to be defined on a plan and pass a
resolution authorising the Commissioner and the Commissioner
shall thereupon be empowered to provide such accommodation.
Section 284J(a) provides that the Commissioner may, for such
purposes, acquire any land including any buildings thereon.
Section 284K( 1 ) provides that the Commissioner may, with
the sanction of the Standing Committee, be authorised to
acquire the land by means of a compulsory acquisition order
made and submitted to the State Government and confirmed by
it in accordance with the provisions of Schedule C to the
Act; and s. 284K(3) provides that the provisions of Schedule
B to the Act shall have effect with respect to the validity
and date of operation of the compulsory acquisition order.
Clause 2, Schedule C, provides that before submitting the
order to the State Government the Commissioner has to pub-
lish the order in the Official Gazette and in three or more
newspapers. The Commissioner has also to serve on persons
specified in el. 2(b) notices calling for objections etc.
Clause 3 provides that upon compliance with the provisions
of cls. 1 and 2 the Commissioner shall submit to the Stand-
ing Committee any objections received under el. 2 and any
suggestions he may wish to make in that respect. Under cl.
4, the Standing Committee shall, after consideration of any
such objections and suggestions, make such modification in
respect of such order as it may think fit and the Commis-
sioner shall thereafter submit the order, as modified by the
Standing Committee, to the State Government for confirma-
tion. Clause 2 of Schedule B provides for an appeal to a
Judge of the City Civil Court in Ahmedabad and elsewhere to
a Judge of the District Court against the order of acquisi-
tion confirmed by the State Government. Section 284N refer-
entially incorporates in the Bombay Act certain provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as detailed in Appendix I
to the Bombay Act. Accordingly all the sections in Part H
of the Land Acquisition Act, except s. 4(1), s. 6 and s.
17(2) are bodily incorporated in the Bombay Act. Hence, s.
5A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides for personal
hearing of the objectors to an acquisition, forms part of
the Bombay Act.
In pursuance of the authority of the Corporation of the
City of Ahmedabad the Commissioner passed an order of com-
pulsory acquisition under s.284J. published it in the Offi-
cial Gazette and in local newspapers, and served individual
notices on the concerned parties. The appellants, who
objected to the acquisition were however, not given any
personal hearing by the Commissioner inspite of a request by
them. The Commissioner submitted the objections with his
suggestions, to the Standing Committee, and the Committee
approved the order of compulsory acquisition. The State
Government thereafter confirmed the order. The appellants
preferred an appeal to the City Civil Court on the basis,
inter alia, of the denial of personal hearing to them; but
the Court held that the principles of natural justice were
satisfied, and the High Court confirmed the order of the
City Civil Court.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
72
HELD: Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, is applicable in
the present case. It is not a case of failure of the rules
of natural justice but one of noncompliance with the manda-
tory provision in s. 5A; and since no personal hearing had
been given to the appellants by the Commisisoner, the order
of acquisition, and the confirmation by the State Government
are invalid. [78 G-H]
(1) The incorporated provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act are subject to the provisions of Chap. XVI of the Bombay
Act; that is, if there is any inconsistency between a provi-
sion in Chap. XVI of the Bombay Act, and that of the Land
Acquisition Act, the former will prevail. But there is no
express provision of the Chapter ousting the application of
s. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. [76 D-E]
(2) Schedule C does not, even by necessary implication,
rule out the right to personal hearing. On the other hand,
since the Standing Committee is entitled to have the Commis-
sioner’s properly considered suggestions which may enable it
even to modify the order of acquisition, it is necessary
that the Commissioner gives a personal hearing to the objec-
tors before he makes his suggestions worthy in the context
of the objections lodged, for otherwise, his. suggestions
will be devoid of much practical utility to Committee. [77
C-D]
(3) The appeal provided for under Schedule B is not a
substitute for the right to personal hearing. The applica-
bility of s. 5A is therefore not impliedly ousted by the
provision for appeal. [78 D]
The appeal contemplated under Schedule B is only with
regard to the, examination of two aspects, namely, whether
the order or approval of the plan is within the powers of
the Bombay Act; and whether the interests of the appellant
have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of the
Bombay Act not having been complied with. But there may be
other relevant objections which a person may be entitled to
take before the Commissioner when the whole matter is at
large, such as, that the land is not suitable for the par-
ticular purpose, that he himself belongs to a poor class and
would suffer disadvantage by the acquisition, or that there
is a good alternative land available which can be acquired
without causing inconvenience to the occupants of land
sought to be acquired. Hence, a personal hearing is neces-
sary. The appellate court is not required to entertain such
objections in view of its truncated scope and,, even assum-
ing that all such objections could be entertained by it, the
duty of hearing objections under the Bombay Act is of the
Commissioner and he alone can hear them and not a Judge of
the Civil Court. The acquisition order must be a valid
order and the question of appeal arises only after, confir-
mation of such an order by the State Government. [77 G-H; 78
A-D]
Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
[1975] 1 SCR 597 referred to.
(4) Merely because under s. 284N(4) of the Bombay Act,
the acquisition is treated to be under s. 17(1), Land Acqui-
sition Act, and since s. 17(4) is also applicable it could
not be said that s. 5A is excluded by necessary implication;
because, even under s. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act the
appropriate Government has to direct, in a case of urgency,
that the provisions of s. 5A shall not apply. There is no
automatic exclusion of the section even under the Land
Acquisition Act. [78 E-F]
(5) If the order of acquisition is, at inception in-
valid, its invalidity cannot be cured by its approval by the
Standing Committee or by its confirmation by the State
Government. [79 A]
(6) The end does not always justify the means, and even
beneficial schemes under welfare legislation have to be
executed in accordance with the appropriate law. It is no
answer that the object of the scheme is such that it justi-
fies the implementer of the law to be absolutely oblivious
of the manner of enforcement even though the manner is an
integral part of the scheme, imposing under law, restric-
tions on the rights of individuals. [79 C]
[Beneficial laws have to be simple and self-contained.
The introduction of provisions of another Act referentially
in vital matters creates avoidable difficulties and
Irrigation. [79 D]
73
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 431
of 1976.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and
order dated 31-3-1975 of the Gujarat High Court in
Special Civil Application No. 2355 of 1974).
G.L. Sanghi, K.J. John, S.R. Kureshi and D. N,
Mishra, for the appellants.
I. N. Shroff and H.S. Parihar, for Respondent No.
1.
M.N. Shroff, for Respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI, J. The only question that arises in this
appeal by special leave is whether the order of acquisition
passed by the Municipal Commissioner under section 284J of
the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as
applicable to Gujarat, is invalid and void for non-compli-
ance with section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad
(briefly the Corporation) by its resolution of December 15,
1966, authorised its Commissioner under section 2841 of the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (briefly
the Bombay Act) to provide housing accommodation for the
poorer classes. In pursuance of this authority of the
Corporation the Commissioner passed the impugned order of
compulsory acquisition on October 9, 1967, under section
284J of the Bombay Act in respect of 33,357 sq. yds. of land
final plots Nos. 11 to 25 of Town Planning Scheme No. V of
Dariapur, Kazipur Ward.
Out of this area the land belonging to the appellants
measures about 1694 sq. yds. It is averred by the appel-
lants that this area is "predominantly a commercial area and
is almost fully built upon".
The aforesaid order of compulsory acquisition was pub-
lished in the official gazette of January 25, 1968 and in
the local newspapers of February 10/11, 1968. Individual
notices were also served on the concerned parties in ac-
cordance with law inviting objections from the owners in-
cluding the appellants which were lodged in due course.
These objections were submitted to the Standing Committee
by the Commissioner with his suggestions and the Committee
by its resolution No. 1942 of January 21, 1969, approved the
said order of compulsory acquisition. The State Government
thereafter confirmed the said order on January 6, 1972.
The appellants had requested for a personal hearing with
regard to their objections and their grievance is that the
same was denied to them. It is common ground that no
personal hearing was given to the appellants with regard to
their objections by the Commissioner. Even so a period of
nearly five years was taken in the process of finalising the
order.
After confirmation of the order of acquisition by the
Government there is a provision for appeal under Schedule B
to the Bombay Act.
7--1003 Sc1176
74
The appellants preferred an appeal to the City Civil Court
at Ahmedabad and amongst several other grounds raised the
question of the denial of personal hearing to them. The
learned Judge of the City Civil Court did not accede to
the contention and by his order of April 10, 1974, held that
the principles of natural justice were satisfied in this
case inasmuch as they had been given an opportunity to
submit their objections to the acquisition.
The appellants then took the matter to the High Court of
Gujarat under article 227 of the Constitution where the same
grievance as to the denial of personal hearing was reiterat-
ed. The High Court by its order of March 31, 1975 refused
to interfere with the order holding that section 5A of the
Land Acquisition Act was duly complied with. The High Court
also held that the City Civil Court Judge was right in
rejecting the submission since "no oral hearing was ever
claimed in the objection". Hence this appeal, by special
leaye, which was ordered by this Court to be expedited.
From a perusal of the judgment of the City Civil Court
as well as that of the High Court we are of opinion that
there was no proper appraisal of the real issue in the
matter. It appears that both the City Civil Judge and the
High Court were only concerned with whether the rules of
natural justice were complied with in the matter of acquisi-
tion of the land in question. We think, as will be shown
below, that the City Civil Court and the High Court are not
right in their approach.
We find that there is reference to section 5A of the
Land Acquisition Act in the order of the High Court and it
is apparently assumed by the High Court that the said sec-
tion is applicable. All the same the High Court erroneously
thinks that no personal hearing was necessary and the sec-
tion is fully completed with by mere submission. of the
written objection particularly because "no oral bearing
was ever claimed".
Mr. Sanghi submits that so far as the appellants are
concerned they did request for a personal hearing and that
there is no denial by the respondents of their averment to
that effect in their special leave petition. The City Civil
Judge also noted in his judgment that "some of the appel-
lants had in terms demanded a personal hearing in their
objections memorandum". Be that as it may section 5A of
the Land Acquisition Act does not rest on a person’s demand
for personal hearing. The matter may be different if a
person whose property is acquired abandons the right to a
personal hearing with which aspect we are not concerned in
this appeal.
Although the judgment of the High Court, as stated
earlier apparently rests on the asumption that section 5A of
the Land Acquisition Act is applicable Mr. Shroff appearing
on behalf of the respondents submits that that section is
unavailable in the case of acquisition under the Bombay Act,
Mr. Sanghi also, fairly enough, has not taken advantage of
the assumption in the judgment and has submitted by drawing
our attention to the various provisions of the Act that
section 5A is clearly attracted in a matter of acquisition
under the Bombay Act.
75
We will, now, examine the rival contentions with regard
to the applicability of section 5A of the Land Acquisition
Act.
The title of Chapter XVI of the Act is "Improvement
Schemes" and opens with section 270. There are various
sub-headings in this Chapter and we are concerned in this
appeal with only a few sections under the sub-title "Provi-
sion of housing accommodation for the poorer classes", This
sub-title in the Chapter opens with section 2841:
2841 (1) "If the Corporation, upon considera-
tion of a representation from the Commissioner or
other information in its possession, is satisfied
that within any area in any part of the City it is
expedient to provide housing accommodation for the
poorer classes and that such accommodation can be
conveniently provided without making an im-
provement scheme, it shall cause such area to be
defined on a plan and pass a resolution authorising
the Commission and the Commissioner shall there-
upon be empowered to provide such accommodation--"
* * * * * *
Section 284J provides that "the Commissioner
may for the purposes of the foregoing section on
behalf of the Corporation (a) acquire any land
including any-buildings thereon as a site for the
erection of buildings for the poorer classes".
* * * *
Section 284K provides as follows :--
284K. (1) "Land for the purposes of the
foregoing section may be acquired by the Commis-
sioner by agreement upon obtaining the requisite
sanction under section 77, or he may, with the
sanction of the Standing Committee, be authorised
to acquire land for those purposes by means of a
compulsory acquisition order made and submtited to
the State Government and confirmed by it in accord-
ance with the provisions of Schedule C to this Act.
* * * * *
*
(3) The provisions of Schedule B to this Act
shall have effect with respect to the validity and
date of operation of a compulsory acquisition order
made under this section".
* * * * *
*
The next important section is section 284N which
reads as under :--
284N. "The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in
this and the next succeeding sections referred to
as ’the Land Acquisition Act’) shall to the extent
set forth in Appendix I regulate and apply to the
acquisition of land under this Chapter, otherwise
than by agreement, and shall for that purpose be
deemed to form part of this Chapter in the same
manner as if enacted
76
in the body thereof, subject to the provisions of
this Chapter and to the provisions following namely
:--"
* * *
*
Thus, section 284N referentially incorporates in the
Bombay Act certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as
detailed in Appendix I to the Bombay Act. Out of those
provisions we are only concerned with Part 1I (Acquisition)
of the Land Acquisition Act containing sections 4 to 17
including section 5A. According to Appendix I all the
sections in Part Il of the Land Acquisition Act except
subsection (1) of section 4, section 6 and sub-section (2)
of section 17 are bodily incorporated in the Bombay Act.
Those provisions are deemed to be part and parcel of the
Bombay Act. Hence section 5A is clearly a part of the
Bombay Act in terms of Appendix I.
It is true section 284 N provides that the incorporated
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are subject to the
provisions of Chapter XVI and to those contained in section
284N itself. That is to say, if there is any inconsistency
between a provision in Chapter XVI of the Bombay Act or in
section 284N itself and that in the Land Acquisition Act,
the former will prevail over the grafted provisions of the.
Land Acquisition Act. This is, however, not to say that
where section 5A is deemed to be part of the Bombay Act,
there is a further requirement to show in the Bombay Act an
express provision for affording an opportunity of personal
hearing. This is the error into which, earlier, the City
Civil Judge fell. The heart of section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act is the hearing of objections and under sub-
section (2) of that section a personal hearing is mandato-
rily provided for. When, therefore, section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act is applicable under Appendix I of the
Bombay Act and there is nothing to show expressly or by
necessary implication that the said section or any part of
it is excluded under section 284N or under any other provi-
sion in Chapter XVI as a whole the right to personal hearing
under the Bombay Act cannot vanish or be defeated.
Mr. Shroff fairly and, in our opinion, rightly concedes
that there is no express ouster of section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act under the provisions of Chapter XVI of the
Bombay Act. He, however, submits that there is a special
machinery under section 284K of the Act disclosed in Sched-
ule C and in Schedule B attached to the Bombay Act and since
section 284N is subject to the provisions of Chapter XVI
these Schedules form part of the Chapter. Assuming that
Schedule C and Schedule B are part of Chapter XVI we are
unable to read in the provisions contained in these two
Schedules any exemption from the right to personal hearing
mandatorily required under section 5A of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act.
It is true that the mode of acquisition of land for
housing accommodation is provided for under section 284K and
that the order of compulsory acquisition made by the Commis-
sioner has to be confirmed by the State Government in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Schedule C to the Bombay
Act. Broadly, clause 2 of Schedule C provides that before
submitting the order to the State Government the
Commissioner,
77
inter alia, has to publish the order in the official gazette
and in three or more newspapers. The Commissioner has also
to serve on persons specified in clause 2(b) notices calling
for objections, etc. Clause 3 provides that upon compliance
with the provisions of clauses 1 and 2 the Commissioner
shall submit to the Standing Committee any objections re-
ceived under clause 2 and any suggestions he may wish to
make in that respect. Under clause 4 the Standing Committee
shall after consideration of any such objections and sugges-
tions make-suCh modification in respect of such order as it
may think fit and the Commissioner shall thereafter submit
the order as modified by the Standing Committee to the State
Government for confirmation. It is manifest that the proce-
dure under the scheme of Schedule C will be breached if
the Commissioner does not afford a personal hearing to the
objectors even in order to be able to fortify his sugges-
tions which he has to submit to the Standing Committee along
with the objections. Since the Standing Committee is enti-
tled to have his properly considered suggestions which may
enable it even to modify the order of acquisition it is
necessary that the Commissioner gives a personal hearing to
the objectors before he is able to make his suggestions
worthy in the context of the objections lodged. Otherwise
it will be only an empty formality and the suggestions will
be devoid of much of practical utility to the Committee.
Schedule C, therefore, does not even by necessary implica-
tion rule out a right to personal hearing.
Clause 2 of Schedule B provides for an appeal to a Judge
of the City Civil Court .in Ahmedabad and elsewhere to a
Judge of the District Court whose decision shall be final.
Mr. Shroff submits that provision for an appeal against the
acquisition order after confirmation by’ the State Govern-
ment provides for appropriate remedy before a judicial
Tribunal. This also, says Mr. Shroff, goes to indicate, by
necessary implication, that personal hearing required under
section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is dispensed with and
the remedy provided for under the provisions of the Bombay
Act read with the two Schedules is exhaustive and necessari-
ly excludes the application of section 5A of the Land Acqui-
sition Act and with it the right of personal hearing provid-
ed thereunder.
We should make it clear that provision for appeal is not
a complete substitute for a personal hearing which is pro-
vided for under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
This will be evident from a perusal of clause 3 of Schedule
B itself. The character of the appeal contemplated under
clause 3(ii) of Schedule B is only with regard to the
examination of the following aspects :--
(1 ) whether the order or approval of the
plan .is within the powers of the Bombay Act, and
(2) whether the interests of the appellant have
been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of
this Act not having been complied with.
The appeal is confined under clause 3 of Schedule B to the
examination of only the twin aspects referred to above.
There is no provision for entertainment of any other rele-
vant objection to the acquisition of
78
land. For example a person whose land is acquired may
object to the suitability of the land for the particular
purpose acquired. He may again show that he will be at an
equal disadvantage if his land and house have to be acquired
in order to provide accommodation for the poorer people as
he himself belongs to the same class of the indigent.He may
further show that tbere is a good alternative land available
and can be acquired without causing inconvenience to the
occupants of the houses whose lands and houses are sought
to be acquired. There may be other relevant objections
which a person may be entitled to take before the Commis-
sioner when the whole matter is at large. The Commissioner
will be in a better position to examine those objections and
consider their.weight from all aspects and may even visit
the locality before submitting his report to the Standing
Committee with his suggestions. For this purpose also a
personal hearing is necessary. The appeal court under the
Schedule B to the Bombay Act, on the other hand, is not
required under clause 3 to entertain all kinds of objections
and it may even refuse to consider the objections mentioned
earlier in view of the truncated scope of the hearing under
clause 3(ii) as noted above. We are, therefore, unable to
accept the submission that the appeal provided for under
Schedule B is a complete substitute for a right to personal
hearing and as such by necessary implication ousts the
applicability of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Mr. Shroff further submits that under the Appendix I,
inter alia, section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act is
made applicale in an acquisition proceeding under the Bombay
Act. It is, therefore, submitted that under section 284N,
sub-section (4) any acquisition under the Bombay Act is
treated as an acquisition under section 17 ( 1 ) of the Land
Acquisition Act and since section 17(4) of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act is also brought in under the said Appendix, section
5A of the Land Acquisition Act, by necessary implication,
should be held as excluded from the purview of the Bombay
Act. We are unable to accept this submission. Even under
section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act the appropriate
Government has to direct, in a case of urgency, that the
provisions of section 5A shall not apply. There is no
automatic exclusion of section 5A even under the Land Acqui-
sition Act. That being the position there is no substance in
the contention that because of subsection (4) of section
284N, section 5A should be held inapplicable in the case of
an acquisition proceeding under the Bombay Act.
We are clearly. of opinion that section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act is applicable in the matter of acquisition
of land in this case and since no personal hearing had been
given to the appellants by the Commissioner with regard to
their written objections the order of acquisition and the
resultant confirmation order of the State Government with
respect to the land of the appellants are invalid under the
law and the same are quashed. It should be pointed out, it
is not a case of failure of the rules of natural justice as
such as appeared to be the only concern of the High Court
and also of the City Civil Court. It is a case of absolute
non-compliance with a mandatory provision under section 5A
of the Land Acquisition Act which is clearly applicable in
the matter of acquisition under the Bombay Act.
79
We should also point out that the acquisition order must
be an order valid under the law and the question of appeal
arises only after confirmation of the order by the State
Government. If the order is, at inception, invalid, its
invalidity cannot be cured by its approval of the Standing
Committee or by its confirmation of the State Government.
Besides, hearing of objections under section 5A of the
Land Acquisition Act to be given by the Commissioner under
the Bombay Act cannot be replaced by a kind of appeal hear-
ing by the City Civil Judge. The Bombay Act having assigned
the duty of hearing objections to the Commissioner, he alone
can hear them and not the City Civil Judge even assuming
that all objections could be entertained by him in appeal.
(See Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi &
Ors.(1)].
Beneficial schemes under welfare legislation have to be
executed in accordance with law which creates the schemes.
The end does not always justify the means and it is no
answer that the object of the scheme is such that it justi-
fies the implementer of the law to be absolutely oblivious
of the manner of enforcement even though the manner is an
integral part of the scheme, imposing under the law, re-
strictions on the rights of individuals. Beneficial laws
have to be simple and self-contained. To introduce provi-
sions of another Act referentially in vital matters creates
avoidable difficulties and litigation highlighted by the
case in hand.
It is refreshing that this Court disposed of this
matter within about four months of granting of special
leave.
In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of
the High Court is set aside and with it the appellate order
of the City Civil Judge also falls. The Commissioner shall
give a personal hearing to the appellants as required under
sub-section (2) of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act
and, thereafter, dispose of the matter in accordance with
law. In the circumstances of the case we will, however, make
no order as to costs in this appeal.
V.P.S. Appeal al-
lowed.
S.C.R. 597.
80