ZANDU PHARMACUTICAL WORKS LTD Vs. G.J. DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the owner of certain immoveable properties in Bombay bearing City Survey Nos. 1150, 1148, 1149/1, 1149/2, 1302, 1153, 1157 and 1154 of the Mahim Division of Bombay. On June 25, 1951 the Municipal Corporation of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") published a declaration of its intention to prepare a Town Planning Scheme in respect of the Mahim Area of the City of Bombay. The said declaration was made under Section 4 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1915 (Bombay Act 1 of 1915) (hereinafter referred to as "the 1915 Act"). On or about August 12, 1954 the Corporation prepared and published a draft scheme in the Bombay Government Gazette, known as "the Town Planning Scheme, Bombay City No. IV, Mahim area". Shri G.J. Desai, the 1st respondent was appointed as the Arbitrator for the said scheme. On or about February 18, 1957 the 1st respondent served a notice on the appellant under the provision of the 1915 Act, informing the appellant that the Corporation proposed to alter the areas and boundaries of the lands belonging to the appellant in the manner set out therein and called upon the appellant to appear before him and raise any objection or suggestion in respect of the aforesaid proposals of the Corporation. The proposals of the Corporation had resulted in the appellant being granted a final plot being final plot no. 396, instead of the lands originally held by it, which are described as Original Plot No. 355. The area of the appellant's lands originally held was 12,498.45 sq. yds. The area of the final plot was 13,691 sq. yds. The Corporation proposed the value of the original plots, as from the date of the declaration of intention to be Rs.30/ - per sq. yds., the undeveloped value of the final plot to be Rs.32/ - per sq. yds., and the developed value of the final plot to be Rs.57/ - per sq. yd. In addition, the Corporation also proposed certain figures for the valuation of the structures standing on the original plots as well as on the final plot. By reason of the fact that the plots being allotted to the appellant had a larger area than the plots originally held by them, the appellant became liable to pay a contribution amounting to Rs. 36,891/ -. The appellant was also liable to pay an increment, under Section 17 of the 1915 Act and the said increment amounted to the difference between the developed value of the final plot and the undeveloped value of the same and the total amount of such increment amounted to Rs. 3,42,275/ - The Corporation proposed that 50% of the said amount amounting to Rs. 1,71,138/ - was to be recovered from the appellant as incremental charges under the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act. By its letter dated September 7, 1957 the appellant urged several objections to the proposal of the Corporation. But the appellant did not appear before the 1st respondent inspite of notice being given to it. The first respondent, however, considered the objections of the appellant and several objections of the appellant were wholly or partly allowed and he published the final scheme on or about February 24, 1962. The appellant received a copy of the extract of the said scheme, in so far as it pertained to the lands of the appellant on or about March 24, 1962. In the said final scheme the area of the lands originally held by the appellant was correctly shown as being 17, 442 sq. yards and the same were numbered as original plots Nos. 335, 335A and 335B. The final plots awarded to the appellant were numbered 1025 and 1028. The area of the final plots in the aggregate amounted to 17,712 sq. yds. The 1st respondent accepted the proposal of the Corporation that the value of the original plots should be fixed at Rs. 30/ - per sq. yd. As far as the undeveloped value of the final plots were concerned the 1st respondent accepted the objections urged by the appellant and took the same to be Rs. 30/ - per sq. yd. instead of Rs. 32/ - per sq. yd. proposed by the Corporation. Similarly, the 1st respondent partially accepted the submission of the appellant as to the developed value proposed by the Corporation was Rs. 57/ - per sq.yd. As result of the decision of the 1st respondent, the appellant became entitled to an additional area of 269.59 sq. yds. and it was obliged to contribute to the cost of the same the sum of Rs. 8,087/ -. The 1st respondent fixed the contribution of the appellant towards the costs of the scheme at 50 of the increment and the same came to Rs. 88,560/ -. As a result of the decision of the 1st respondent, the appellant became liable to pay by way of contribution the total sum of Rs. 96,647.

(2.) ON April 1, 1957 the 1915 Act was repealed by the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (27 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as "the 1954 Act"). Section 90 of the 1954 Act provided that all proceedings and schemes commenced under the 1915 Act came into force were to be continued and completed under the provisions of the 1954 Act.

(3.) IN State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas (1) it was held by this Court that Sections 53 of 67 of the 1954 Act regarded as law for acquisition of land for public purposes do not infringe the fundamental right under Article 31(2) of the Constitution because the Act has specified principles on which compensation is to be determined and given. It was also pointed out that in the scheme of the 1954 Act there was no acquisition by the State Government of land needed for a town planning scheme. When the Town Planning Scheme comes into operation the land needed by a local authority vests by virtue of Section 53 (a) . . and that vesting for purposes of the guarantee under Article 31(2) is deemed compulsory acquisition for a public purpose. To lands which are subject to the scheme, the provisions of Sections 53 and 67 apply, and the compensation is determined only in the manner prescribed by the Act. There are therefore two separate provisions one for acquisition by the State Government, and the other in which the statutory vesting of land operates as acquisition or the purpose of town planning by the local authority. The State Government can acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, and the local authority only under the Bombay Town Planning Act. There is no option to the local authority to report to one or the other of the alternative method which result in acquisition. Hence the provisions of Sections 53 and 67 are not invalid on the ground that they deny the equal protection of the laws or equality before the laws.