BALAKRISHNA MEHAT Vs. CORPORATION OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the learned judges felt that the earlier decision of this court in Madurai Municipality v. Muthuswami Chettiar, took a view of the provisions of the madras Town Planning Act which they were inclined to dissent from. Accordingly, this appeal has been posted before this Full Bench for disposal.

(2.) THE principal question that arises in this appeal is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to go into the question of the increase in value or the likelihood of increase in value or the likelihood of increase in value of any properties involved in a town planning scheme by the making of that scheme. Even at the outset we may preface our discussion by stating that the Division Bench which decided held that there is no provision in the Town Planning Act, as to who should decide the important question whether any property has increased in value or is likely to increase in value by the making of the town planning scheme. It was upon this aspect of the matter that the Judges who have referred this appeal were inclined to differ from the learned judges who decided The point that therefore arises for decision at present is whether the Act does or does not contain any provision as to the determination of the increase in value or the likelihood of increase in value as a result of the making of the town planning scheme. For purposes of the town planning scheme. For purposes of completeness, we would like to set out the facts leading to this appeal. In pursuance of the provisions of the Madras Town Planning Act, a draft scheme, known as the Thousand Lights Area Town Planning Scheme, was prepared by the corporation of Madras. As required by S. 14 of that Act, this scheme was sanctioned by the State Government and was duly published in the Fort St. George Gazette, under S. 14 (5) of the Act. An arbitrator was appointed to perform the functions specified in S. 27 of the Act. It was provided by Cl. 22 of the scheme that 'claims for betterment contribution under S. 23 of the Act shall be submitted to the arbitrator within 2 years of the date of the scheme. ' It was further provided that the contribution may be levied for a term of 20 years at a uniform rate of 71/ 2 per cent of the increase in value calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In due course, the Corporation preferred a claim before the Arbitrator under S. 23 of the Act claiming that the properties covered by the scheme had increased or were likely to increase in value by the making of the town planning scheme. As required by form 20, prescribed under the rules framed by the government, they also specified in their application the valuation of the properties as at the date of the publication of the notification under S. 12 of the Act. The arbitrator gave his decision and in so far as the properties concerned in this appeal are concerned, held that they were liable for the betterment contribution under S. 23 of the Act, and he also recorded the marked value of these properties at the date of the notification under S. 12. It may be mentioned at this sage that though the other property owners, in respect of whose properties also claims for betterment contribution has been made by the corporation, appear to have appealed under S. 29 of the Act against the decision of the Arbitrator, the appellant before us did not adopt that course in respect of the determination by the arbitrator relating to his properties. In October 1948, the Corporation made demands for betterment contribution on the basis of the increase in value of these properties over their value as on the date of the publication of notification as determined by the Arbitrator. The appellant preferred revision petitions to the Commissioner and on the dismissal of those revision petitions, he preferre4d appeals to the council. Those appeals were also dismissed. It is stated in the plaint that on foot of demands issued by the corporation, a sum of Rs. 7,613-9-9 had been collected from the appellant and that further demands to a like amount are still pending against him. At this stage the suit was filed contending that the suit properties derived no amenity or benefit of any kind whatsoever from the making of the town planning scheme and that the proceedings under the Act leading to the levy of the betterment contribution and the collection thereof are all illegal and ultra vires. It was claimed also that any increase in the marked value of the properties subsequent to the date of the notification under S. 12 of the Act was due to the situation of the property on the mount Road and not at all the result of the notification of the properties in the town planning scheme. on those averments the suit was said for a declaration that the suit properties are not liable to the levy and for the recovery of the amounts so far levied and collected.

(3.) THE only contention of the defendant that we need consider is that the civil court has no jurisdiction, the Act having provided otherwise for the purpose of the determination of the points in controversy. In effect, therefore, the question resolves itself into one of determining whether the decision of the Arbitrator under s. 27 (1) (d) of the Act is final, and whether the civil court is precluded from dealing with the question whether any particular property is or is not liable to betterment contribution.