SAM HIRING CO Vs. A R BHUJBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. This appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made in Appeal No. 893/92 (reported in AIR 1994 Bombay 296). The facts lying in short compass are stated as under:- The appellant is the tenant of the land which is a part of City Survey No. 56 which was sought to be acquired under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, (for short, Act'). The superstructure in City Survey No. 56 was in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, the Bombay Housing and Area Development Board had examined the position and decided that a scheme was required to be framed under the Act for reconstruction and therefter for allotment to the persons in occupation. When the acquisition proceedings were initiated after finalisation of the scheme, notices were given under Section 5-A to the interested persons including the appellant. The appellant had raised the contention that the tenement in which it was carrying on the business was not part of the City Survey No. 56. It is an independent building and, therefore, it is not liable to be demolished for acquisition. Based upon that objection, a report was called for from the Executive Engineer who submitted the report thereon to the Land Acquisition Officer. After considering the report, he submitted a proposal for proceeding with the acquisition. It is not in dispute that except this structure, all other structures have been demolished in 1981 and the construction is yet to start. Ever since all others are, unfortunately, in transit camp.

(3.) Shri S. K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, has contended that by operation of the provisions of Section 2 (7) read with Section 2 (9) the building in occupation of the appellant is non-cess payable building. Consequently, the building which is in exclusive possession in Chapter VIII, is not liable to be proceeded with, if the value of the reconstruction is Rs. 500/- per sq. mt. or below. Since a certificate in that behalf has already been issued in support thereof, the action taken for demolition and acquisiton is not according to law. After the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, the Land Acquisition Officer had not given any independent hearing nor called the Executive Engineer for cross-examination. Therefore, it is violative of the principles of natural justice. The third contention raised is that the Land Acqusition Officer should have considered all the objections and give finding on each of the objections before submitting his proposal for further action. Shri M.L. Verma, the learned senior counsel resisted all these contentions.