IMPORTANT POINT
The LAO gave an opportunity to appellant to establish his objection that his tenament was an independent building and this was not liable to be demolished for acquisition and dismissed it after proper hearing. The appellant is this not entitled to any further hearing.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. This appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made in Appeal No. 893/92. The facts lying in short compass are stated as under :

3. The appellant is the tenant of the land which is a part of City Survey No. 56, which was sought to be acquired under the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976, (for short, Act ). The super-structure in City Survey No. 56 was in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, the Bombay Housing and Area Development Board had examined the position and decided that a scheme was required to be framed under the Act for reconstruction and thereafter for allotment to the persons in occupation. When the acquisition proceedings were initiated after finalisation of the scheme, notices were given under Section 5-A to the interested persons including the appellant. The appellant had raised the contention that the tenement in which it was carrying on the business was not part of the City Survey No. 56. It is an independent building and, therefore, it is not liable to be demolished for acquisition. Based upon that objection, a report was called for from the Executive Engineer who submitted the report thereon to the Land Acquisition Officer. After considering the report, he submitted a proposal for proceeding with the acquisition. It is not in dispute that except this structure, all other structures have been demolished in 1981 and the construction is yet to start. Ever since all others are, unfortunately, in transit camp.

4. Shri S.K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, has contended that by operation of the provisions of Section 2(7) read with Section 2(9), the building in occupation of the appellant is non-cess payable building. Consequently, the building which is in exclusive possession in Chapter VIII, is not liable to be proceeded with, if the value of the reconstruction is Rs. 500/- per sq. mt. or below. Since a certificate in that behalf has already been issued in support thereof, the action taken for demolition and acquisition is not according to law. After the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, the Land Acquisition Officer had not given any independent hearing nor called the Executive Engineer for cross-examination. Therefore, it is violative of the principles of natural justice. The third contention raised is that the Land Acquisition Officer should have considered all the objections and given finding on each of the objections before submitting his proposal for further action. Shri M.L. Verma, the learned senior counsel resisted all these contentions.

Having given consideration to the respective contentions, the question arises whether the structure on which the appellant is tenant is an independent building in City Survey No. 56 ? Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the counter-part of Shri S.K. Dholakia, had conceded that the principle contention raised was that the shed only "is not liable to be acquired even though the shed is a part of the plot. City Survey No. 56." The gravamen of the complaint is that the Board can move the Government only to acquire the building for the purpose of reconstruction exercising power under Section 76(d) of the Act. The Division Bench has held that plain reading of Section 2(7) of the definition of building makes it clear that it includes a tenement let or intended to be let or occupied separately and a house, out-house, stable, shed, hut and every other such structure. On account of that finding, it was held that the structure in which the appellant has been carrying on the business is part of City Survey No. 56 as has been conceded by the learned counsel who appeared for the appellant in the High Court and as such is liable to be acquired. Once it is concluded that he is a tenant or that his shed is part of the building, the question whether the tenant is independently paying cess under the Act as defined under Section 2(9)