EDARA VENKATA RAO Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER ELURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell land brought by the appellants (who are father and son) against the respondent which is the Municipal Council, Eluru, represented by its Commissioner. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court substantially on two grounds (1) that there was no concluded agreement of sale between the parties; (2) that even assuming that there was such an agreement, there was no contract in conformity with the requirements of the Madras Distrct Municipalites Act V of 1920. Mr. Parthasarathi for the appellants has challenged the correctness of both the grounds of decision-as indeed he must in order that the appeal may succeed. Before we take up the consideration of those contentions, we shall state the facts, (which are not in dispute) leading up to the litigation.

(2.) The appellants are well known businessmen of Eluru and the first appellant was for a number of years a member of the Town Municipal Council. In the year 1941 when he was in the Council, it occurred to him that it would be a matter of great public convenience to link two roads passing through the town, one known as the 5th longitudinal road and the other known as Fathebada Road, by a connecting road. At his instance notices were served by the Commissioner upon the owners of the sites lying between the two main roads which could be used to lay the connecting road requiring them not to dispose of them as house sites. But seeing that they were bent upon selling them, early in 1942 he would seem to have offered to the Commissioner to mediate with the owners and induce them to sell the sites to the Municipality. Nothing, however, came of this attempt and the Council passed a resolution in 1943 to acquire the sites under the Land Acquisition Act and, accordingly plans were drawn up showing the sites to be acquired. But the owners were trying to dispose of them in the meanwhile, and as the first plaintiff became interested in the provision of this public amenity, he himself purchasesd some of the sites and negotiated for the purchase of the rest presumably in order to prevent speculative purchases by others, or possible construction of structures on the sites before the Municipality could acquire them. We have no information as to what happened till 29th September, 1945, when the Council resolved that the subject of acquiring the sites required for connecting the roads be referred to a committee of five councillors. On 26th October, 1945, the committee so appointed reported that the acquisition was essential. On soth November, 1945, the Council resolved that the matter should be considered at the time of the budget. In the meanwhile, the first appellant purchased a substantial number of these sites from the owners. For some reason not easily ascertainable, the matter was again in cold storage until it was taken up again in 1949. On 31st March of that year the Council passed a resolution (Exhibit 6-7) in partial modification of its previous resolution of the year 1943 " to acquire the sites required for the road by private negotiations conducted with the party by a committee " and, to that end, (as required by the rules framed under the Act) " to request the District Collector to approve the acquisition of the sites by private negotiations ". On receiving the resolution the Collector required the Council to incorporate in it the relevant T.S. Nos. and their extents and directed it to obtain legal opinion " regarding the conveyance of the property with full rights ". Then on 27th September, 1950, the Council passed a resolution (Exhibit B-8) to the following effect :-

(3.) On 24th October, 1950, presumably after receiving the above resolution, the Collector wrote to the Commissioner of Council stating that encumbrance certificates relating to all the sites should be obtained and that the standing counsel of the Council should be consulted with regard to the title to the sites not belonging to Sri Edara Venkataramayya (the second appellant). On 25th June, 1951 the first plaintiff" succeeded in purchasing another of the sites from the owner and communicated to the Commissioner both the fact of his purchase as also his preparedness to part with it in favour of the Municipality at a rate to be fixed by the Revenue Department of the Government-at which rate only the Municipality can buy immovable property by private treaty. He also forwarded with his letter the encumbrance certificate relating to the site. Receiving no reply to hat letter, on 31st July, 1951 the plaintiffs sent another communication to the Commissioner complaining that although the Council had passed a resolution (about the acquisition) and the price payable for the sites too was fixed by the revenue authorities, payment of the compensation amount was not yet made to them. The Commissioner replied to this by his letter, dated 9th August, 1951,in which he stated that the claim preferred by the plaintiffs was receiving his attention. On 13th November, 1951, the first plaintiff wrote another letter to the Commissioner in which he stated as follows :-