Judgement

Appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court (August 9, 1912) affirming, subject to a modification, a decree of Beaman J.

Law Rep. 45 Ind. App. 125 ( 1917- 1918) Narma V. Municipal Commissioner for Bombay

40

The suit was instituted by the appellants in the High Court under circumstances which sufficiently appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

The appellants claimed (( 1866) L. R. 1 H. L. 34, 43..) restoration of possession of their land, or a declaration that the action of the Commissioner in purporting to prescribe the " regular line " was ultra vires ; (( 1885) 28 Ch. D. 486, 498..) an order, if necessary, upon the respondents to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act; and (3.) an injunction and damages.

The trial judge, Beaman J., dismissed the suit, holding that the proper remedy open to the appellants was by compensation under s. 301 of the Act.

Upon appeal the learned judges (Sir Basil Scott C.J. and Chandavarkar J.) varied the decree. It appeared that the prescription of the regular line in respect of which possession of the land was taken on July 7, 1909, was not sanctioned by the corporation until October, and that thereupon fresh n