Judgment

V. D. TULZAPURKAR, J. : - There is no substance in these appeals preferred by the appellants against a common judgment rendered in a batch of writ pettions by the High Court on 24th December, 1971 wherein the High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of S. 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 (for short the Act) and Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 (for short the Rules).

2. By a notification dated 21st July, 1965 the State Government of Gujarat sanctioned the Final Town Planning Scheme in respect of certain areas lying within the limits, of Borough Municipality of Ahmedabad and directed that the said. Final Scheme shall come into force on 1st Sept, 1965. The lands in the possession of the appellants were allotted or reserved for construction of roads and other public purposes in that Scheme and therefore, being lands required by the Municipal Corporation they vested absolutely in Municipal Corporation (local authority) free from all encumbrances under S. 53(a) of the Act. Thereafter by notices issued under S. 54 read with Rule 27 the Municipal Corporation called upon the appellants to hand over possession of the lands in their occupation, which, since such vesting, they were not entitled to occupy; in other words, the procedure or the remedy for summary eviction of the appellants was resorted to by the Municipal Corporation.

3. By writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution the appellants challenged the validity of these notices on two grounds

(a) that S. 54 confers absolute discretion upon the local authority to adopt for evicting the occupants of such lands either the normal remedy of a civil suit or the drastic remedy of summary eviction under it without any guidelines being prescribed or indicated for the exercise of such discretion and therefore the section was violative of Art. 14 inasmuch as the local authority could pick and choose at its sweet will some of such occupants for subjecting them to the more drastic remedy;

(b) that S. 54 which provides for summary eviction by service of notice contemplated thereunder was opposed to principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity was contemplate to be afforded to the occupants of such lands to show cause against the proposed eviction and as such was bad in law; and in any event even if S. 54 was, on proper construction held to include the affording of such opportunity Rule 27 was ultra vires the said section inasmuch as it laid down the procedure which did not conform to principles of natural justice.

4. The High Court has negatived both the grounds of challenge. As regards ground (a), relying upon the decision in Wolver-hampton New Water Works case reported in (1859) 6 C. B. (N. S.) 336 and observations of Willes J. therein (appearing at page 356 of the Report) the High Court took the view that the rights of the local authority (to own and obtain possession of such lands) with the corresponding liability of the occupants to suffer eviction therefrom did not exist under the law prior to the making of the Final Scheme, that such rights and liabilities were created for the first time by the Final Scheme which is to be read as part of the Act and since the Act while creating these new rights, and liabilities provided for a special and particular remedy for enforcing them under S. 54 the remedy of summary eviction must be held to be an exclusive remedy and the liability to eviction arising under S. 53(a) or (b) cannot be enforced by the ordinary remedy of a suit; in other words, the remedy of. summary eviction under S. 54 having been held to be an exclusive remedy the entire ground of challenge disappeared. As regards ground (b) the High Court took the view that S. 54 conferred upon the local authority a quasijudicial power and not administrative power and as such it was bound, in conformity with the principles of natural justice, to give an opportunity of hearing to the occupants before taking the threatened action of summary e