VE. A. VAIRAVAN CHETTIAR BY POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT, M.L. S.M. SUBRAMANYA CHETTIAR AND ORS. Vs. MAYURAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, a common question is raised. The facts in W.P. No. 514 of 1971 can be perused, for understanding the relevant facts arising in this batch. Under the provisions of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the State of Tamil Nadu called upon the Mayuram Municipal Council, Under Section 12 of the Act to prepare, publish and submit for their sanction a draft scheme as respects lands in regard to which a town planning scheme may be made. This notification in the official Gazette was made on 2nd May, 1944 and the Municipal Council was granted time till 10th March, 1945, for such preparation and submission. The Municipal Council did not send up the draft scheme as mandated from time to time ; the Municipality requested for time to submit the draft scheme for the sanction of the State Government. As a matter of fact, several applications were made seeking for such extension during the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1953,. 1954 and 1955. Some applications were made at a time when the last date fixed for the submission of such draft schemes and as notified by the Government had expired. Some applications, however, were made in time. The Government acting on such applications extended the time for the preparation, publication and submission of the draft scheme by the Municipality and the last order in which the final extension was made by the Government was on 13th June, 1956 under which the Municipality was to prepare and submit the draft town planning scheme by 31st December, 1956. This time the Municipality submitted such a scheme and after due observance of the formalities required Under Section 13, the State Government after considering the objections and suggestions in and over the draft scheme so submitted by the Municipality and after making such enquiry as they deemed fit, sanctioned, what is known as, "Pattamangalam Extension Towns Planning Scheme, Mayuram ". Such a sanction was made Under Section 14 (3) of the Act on 23th January, 1961. Under the provisions of the scheme, which provided for the laying of roads and providing various amenities in the area comprised in the town planning scheme, a provision was made for the preference of claims for betterment contribution Under Section 23 of the Act. Originally, the period within which such claims, should be made was fixed at two years ; but it is common ground that the time for submission of such claims was extended by four years by the Government in exercise of their powers Under Section 15 of the Act. Under clause 22, the betterment contribution may be levied for a term of 10 years after the execution of the scheme at a uniform rate of 61/4 per cent of the increase in value calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Such schemes were made by the Municipality and were filed before the statutory authority known as the arbitrator appointed for the purpose Under Section 27 of the Act. One of the functions of the arbitrator so appointed is to entertain such applications filed by the Municipality for the determination of the quantum of betterment contribution as also the nature of liability of landowners-inside the town planning scheme. Section 27 (1) (d) provides that an arbitrator appointed by the State Government has the power to determine, in reference to the claims made, the properties which are liable to the betterment contribution Under Section 20 and estimate and record their market value at the date of the notification Under Section 10 or Section 12, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of clause (a) of Section 24. Section 24 enumerates the principles under which the betterment contribution shall be levied. The arbitrator, who so entertained the claims, dismissed them on the ground that no property inside the scheme is liable to contribute towards betterment contribution and even if it becomes necessary for him to fix the value of the properties inside the scheme area Under Section 27 (1) (d) of the Act, the relevant date was 13th June, 1956 which is the last date on which the Government extended the time for the Municipality to submit the draft schemes and not 2nd May, 1944 which was the date when the State Government for the first time called upon the Municipality to prepare and publish a draft scheme under the Act. Ultimately, the arbitrator was of the view that no improvements in the area were effected by the Municipality after the scheme was finally sanctioned by the State Government, Under Section 14, clause (6) of the Act and held that none of the properties inside the scheme area were liable for betterment contribution and, therefore, dismissed the claims. As against this the Municipality appealed Under Section 29 (1) of the Act.

(2.) The learned District Judge found that it is not open to the landowners inside the scheme area to question the validity of the scheme or the due process adopted for its making, as it is conclusive in law. He also held that the date on which the market value of the properties should be fixed Under Section 12 of the Act was 2nd May, 1944 and not 13th June, 1956. After finding that the properties inside the scheme area did have a benefit by reason of the making of the scheme, the appellate authoritity set aside the award of the arbitrator ; but on the ground that there was no sufficient materials before him to estimate the market value of the properties as on the date of notification Under Section 12 of the Act he caused a remand of the subject-matter to the file of the arbitrator and made an observation that the Municipality should be directed to move the appropriate authority for the appointment of a fresh arbitrator for the purpose. It is as against this award of the appellate authority (the District Judge, East Thanjavur) that the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) The case of the Government and the Municipality who were obviously sailing together, is that the scheme having been sanctioned by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the means adopted for such sanction were quite in accord with the prescribed mandates under the statute, this Court cannot at this stage and not even the appellate Court or the arbitrator, could go into the propriety or the means or process adopted by the Municipality or the State Government in the matter of the submissions or ultimate sanction of the town planning scheme, under the Act. They would hesitantly state that the relevant date for fixing the market value of the properties Under Section 12 of the Act should be 2nd May, 1944 and not 13th June, 1956 which is normally understood as the date of notification Under Section 12 whereby the Municipality has been directed to publish a draft scheme for the sanction of the State Government.