BIHARI MILLS Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two consolidated appeals, by special leave, raise the question of the interpretation of certain provisions of the Bombay Town Planning act, 1954 (Bombay XXVII of 1955) which herein- after will be referred to as the Act, with particular reference to the scope and effect of s. 90 of the Act, whereby the Bombay Town Planning Act (Bombay i of 1915) was repealed,- and certain orders of the state Government saved from the effect of the repeal.

(2.) It appears that the Ahmedabad Municipal borough, which was replaced by the Ahmedabad municipal Corporationthe sole respondent in these appeals and which hereinafter will be referred to as the Borough and the Corporation respectively declared its intention by a resolution dated October 1, 1941, to promulgate a scheme under the Act of 1915 in respect of the area known as Khokhara mohmedabad. The said Scheme was in due course sanctioned by the Government of Bombay on July 14, 1942. Under that Act an arbitrator was appointed in respect of the said Scheme, as required under the Act. Shri R. N. Parikh was eventually appointed the Arbitrator under the Act. He finalised the Scheme under the Act of 1915. The Borough was converted into the Ahmedabad Municipal corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal corporation Act of 1949 with effect from July 1, 1950. The Act of 1915 was repealed by the Act which came into force from April 1, 1957. The said Arbitrator notified to the appellants a memorandum dated March 23, 1958, extracting his decision in respect of the said Scheme, in so far as it affected the appellants. The Government of bombay constituted a Board of Appeal under the act, consisting of three persons whom it is not necessary to specify. The appellants filed two appeals against the award of the said Arbitrator. The said Board of Appeal heard the appellants' appeals, as also appeals by other persons, in all 151 appeals, in respect of the said Scheme. It is from the decision, dated January 23, 1959, of the said board of Appeal that the appellants have appealed to this Court, on obtaining special leave.

(3.) Section 30 of the Act of 1915 lays down the duties of the Arbitrator in some detail, running into ten clauses, and a number of sub-clauses. The decision of the Arbitrator, except on matters covered by sub-sections (3a) , (3b) , (3c) , (4) , (6) and (9) of s. 30 have been declared by s. 31 to be final. The matters in respect of which his decision has not been declared to be final, as aforesaid, the Arbitrator's conclusions have been characterised as proposals by s. 32 of the Act of 1915, and those matters were to be submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration, constituted under s. 33 (1) , for its decision. It would thus appear that on certain matters which came under the purview of the Arbitrator's powers, the decision of the Arbitrator was final, and in other matters they were merely proposals to be submitted for the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration. When the act of 1915 was repealed by the Act, it saved certain orders and proceedings by s. 90, which will be set out and discussed later. Under the Act, s. 31 contemplates the appointment of a Town Planning officer, who is a substitute of the Arbitrator under the Act of 1915. Section 32 lays down in great detail the duties of the Town Planning Officer, which may be equated with s. 30 of the Act of 1915. Section 33 declares certain decisions except under s. 32 (1) , cls. (v) , (vi) , (viii) , (ix) , (x) and (xiii) , of the Town Planning Officer to be final and conclusive and binding on all persons, while decisions of the town Planning Officer, under the above clauses, are subject to appeal to the Board of Appeal, under s. 34, to be constituted under s. 35. It will thus appear that the Act has equated the Arbitrator under the Act of 1915 with the Town Planning officer and the Tribunal of Arbitration with the board of Appeal. Though under the former Act the Arbitrator is a part of the Tribunal of Arbitration, under the Act certain decisions of the Town planning Officer are appealable to the Board of appeal. It is common ground that Shri Parikh, the Arbitrator under the Act of 1915, has not been, in terms, appointed the Town Planning Officer under the Act.