Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a civil suit challenging an eviction notice issued by the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad under Section 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 read with Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955. The respondent-plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.1809 of 1972 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the appellant-Corporation, seeking to quash notice dated 14 June 1972 that directed them to vacate suit land within seven days failing which they would be removed by force. The plaintiffs contended that the notice was illegal because no individual notice had been served on plaintiff no.2, who was in possession when the Town Planning Scheme was gazetted on 2 August 1951, and because the notice violated principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity to show cause. The Trial Court decreed the suit and quashed the notice on both grounds. On appeal, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowed the Corporation's appeal on 9 April 1991, relying on Full Bench decisions in Dungarlal v. State of Gujarat and Saiyed Mohammed Abdullamiya Urai-Zee v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to hold that no individual notice was required and that no separate natural justice compliance was necessary. The respondents then filed Letters Patent Appeal No.258 of 1993, and the Division Bench by judgment dated 2 September 1993 restored the Trial Court decree, holding that this Court's decision in Jaswant Singh Mathura Singh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation required individual notice under Rule 21(3) and (4) to be issued to those in possession, and as no such notice was issued to the respondents, the suit was to be decreed. The Division Bench also directed the Corporation to follow due procedure before reconstituting the plot as final Plot No.115 under the Scheme. The Corporation obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Before the Supreme Court, the Corporation argued that the Division Bench misapplied Jaswant Singh: plaintiff no.2 had transferred his right, title and interest to plaintiff no.1 on 1 September 1971 and had nothing to do with the property thereafter; plaintiff no.1 was not in possession on 2 August 1951 when the declaration of intention was published in the Government Gazette, nor on 26 December 1954 when the State Government sanctioned the Scheme, nor on 29 December 1954 when the Scheme was published; therefore no special notice under Rule 21(3) and (4) was required for such a person. The Supreme Court accepted this submission, holding that a special notice is required only for owners, tenants or sub-tenants in possession on the crucial date of gazette notification of the Scheme. Consequently, the Division Bench's reasoning on the Rule 21 notice was erroneous. However, the Court upheld the restoration of the Trial Court decree on the second ground: the notice under Section 54 read with Rule 27 was issued without observing the principles of natural justice. Relying on M/s Babubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that the power under Section 54 read with Rule 27 is quasi-judicial and must be exercised after hearing the occupant and passing a speaking order giving reasons. The impugned notice merely called upon the occupants to vacate within seven days and did not provide any opportunity to show cause or explain their position, and the Trial Court had rightly quashed it on that ground. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's judgment to the extent it restored the Trial Court decree quashing the notice, while disapproving the Division Bench's reasoning regarding non-compliance with Rule 21. The direction regarding reconstitution of the plot did not survive.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Town Planning - Special Notice Requirement - Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955, Section 54; Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955, Rule 21(3)-(4) - A tenant or sub-tenant in possession of a tenement in a Town Planning Scheme is a person interested entitled to special notice under Rule 21(3) and (4) only if in possession on the crucial date of gazette notification of the scheme; persons acquiring interest later are not entitled to such notice - The Division Bench erred in quashing the impugned notice for want of special notice to plaintiff no.1, who was not in possession on 2 August 1951 or 29 December 1954, and plaintiff no.2 had transferred his interest on 1 September 1971 - Held that no special notice under Rule 21(3) was required to be issued to plaintiff no.1 (Paras Not mentioned). B) Municipal Law - Eviction under Town Planning Scheme - Natural Justice and Speaking Order - Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955, Section 54; Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955, Rule 27 - Eviction notice under Section 54 read with Rule 27 must be preceded by hearing and a speaking order because the local authority exercises quasi-judicial power - The impugned notice dated 14 June 1972 merely called upon occupants to vacate within seven days and did not give opportunity to show cause or provide reasons - Held that the notice was invalid for non-compliance with principles of natural justice and the trial court decree quashing it was restored (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether individual/special notice under Rule 21(3) and (4) of Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 was required to be served on respondent-plaintiffs before enforcement of the Town Planning Scheme; whether eviction notice under Section 54 read with Rule 27 was invalid for violation of principles of natural justice
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in quashing the notice on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 21(3) and (4) as respondent no.1 was not in possession on the crucial dates; however, the notice was invalid for violation of principles of natural justice under Section 54 read with Rule 27. The direction requiring the appellant to follow due procedure before reconstituting plot did not survive. The trial court decree quashing the notice was upheld.
Law Points
- Special notice under Rule 21(3) and (4) of Bombay Town Planning Rules
- 1955 is required only for persons in possession on the date the Town Planning Scheme is notified in the official gazette
- eviction under Section 54 read with Rule 27 of Bombay Town Planning Act
- 1955 requires quasi-judicial exercise of power after hearing and passing a speaking order
- principles of natural justice must be observed before depriving a person of property
