Jayantilal Dharamsi and others vs Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(Bom) 392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.M. Daud, J.
Jayantilal Dharamsi and others ..... Petitioner.
Versus
Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay ..... Respondent.
Writ Petition Nos. 35 of 1983, 89 of 1983, 90 of 1983, 984 of 1983, 1375 of 1983, 2311of 1983, 2719 of 1983, 241 of 1984, 1733 of 1985, 2146 of 1985, 552 of 1986, 822 of 1986, 1223 of 1986, 511 of 1986, 2031 of 1989 and of 1989 decided on 1/4-10-1990.
Advocates appeared :
F.H. Taleyarkhan with S.V. Doijode i/by Crawford Bayley Co., for the petitioner in W.P. 35/83 W.P. No. 984/83.
B.R. Zaiwalla with U.J. Makhija Mrs. Zia Mody i/by Mulla Mulla Craigie Blunt Caroe, for the respondent in W.P. 35/83 W.P.No. 984/83.
F.H. Taleyarkhan with R.A. Kapadia i/by Kanga Co., for the petitioner in W.P.No. 89/83. W.P. 90/83.
B.R. Zaiwalla with B.S. Bhesana, K.J. Gandhi, U.J. Makhija and Mrs. Zia Mody i/by Mulla Mulla Craigie Blunt Caroe, for the respondent in W.P.No. 89/83, W.P.No. 2311/83 W.P. No. 2146/85, W.P.No.552/86.
Ashwini Kumar with U.J. Makhija, Mrs. Zia Mody, B.S. Bhesania and K.J. Gandhi, i/by Mulla Mulla Craigie Blunt Caroe, for the respondent in W.P. No. 90/83, W.P. No.1375/83, W.P. No. 1734/85, W.P. No. 822/86.
E.A. Fazalboy with C.M. Mankad, for the petitioner, W.P. No. 2146/85.
C.G. Gavnekar with R. M. Nakhawa, for the petitioners, W.P. No. 1375/83, W.P. No. 2311/83, W.P.No. 2719/83, W.P. 822/86, W.P.No. 1223/86.
U.J. Makhija, Mrs. Zia Mody, K.J. Gandhi and B.S. Bhesania i/by Mulla Mulla Craigie Blunt Caroe, for respondent, W.P. No. 2719/83, W.P. No. 241/84, W.P. No. 1223/86, W.P. No. 511/86, W.P. No. 2031/89/, W.P. No. 2601/89.
M.A. Palan with K.S. Jagmag, for the petitioner, W.P.No. 241/84.
F.H. Taleyarkhan with Aspi Chinoy, i/by Kanga Co., for the petitioner, W.P.No. 1734/85.
F.H. Taleyarkhan with P.D. Shah, i/by M.K. Ambalal Co., for petitioners in W.P. 552/86.
Y.H. Muchhala with M.B. Rushi, for the petitioners in W.P.No. 511/86.
N.H. Gursahani with S.H. Gursahani and A.A. Irani, for the petitioners in W.P. 2031/89, W.P. 2601/89.
G.R. Bharwani, for respondents No. 3 in W.P.No. 2601/89.

Headnote:INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
       Two parts of a statute may be applicable to a given set of circumstances What is requirement of roles of construction-Held, one which bas more opposite application should be preferred as against the other which can only be applied with some difficulty.
       Sections 33. 34. 49 & 52-Notice for enhancement of rent in respect of leases of lands figuring outside the liavicts of port-Competence of Bombay Port Trust.
       Held-No violation of Major Port Trust Act in the demanded raise. Sections 33 and 34 applicable to leases of land outside the port areas and where duration of lease is month to month or 15 monthly.
       MEDICAL COLLEGES
       Rues for admission to postgraduate Degree/Diploma Courses introduced under G R, dated 20-8-1983, Rule 5 (c) & statutory Regulations approved by Central Government under Section 33 as per recommendations of Medical Council of India-Introduction of three years post graduate course In 1988 for first time-Three seats determined on 29-3-88 on basis of availability of three teachers at that lime-Two have advertised for first term on 21-4-88 and other remaining seat reserved for advertisement for August 1988 term-Petitioner c1aimiog that total number of seals for new courses was to be worked out at beginning of year viz. January 1988 on which basis, six seals were worked not for old course in subject of orthopedics-Held-Decision to create seals for new course on basis of availability of recognized teachers bad to be taken out basis of availability of recognised teachers on 29-3-88 when it was decided to issue advertisement for Dew course-Beginning of acedemic year cannot mean January 1988 because said new course for 1988 was to commence long there after pursuant to advertisement dat0ed 21-4-88 issued for first time for new course.

Judgment

S.M. DAUD, J.:---These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution take exception to the respondent's (BPT) attempt to exact rent on the basis of a document, hereinafter referred to as the `Kirloskar report'.

2. Petitioners are in occupation of plots of land belonging to the BPT and either the plots by themselves or the structures built thereon are being used for commercial or residential purposes. The plots were taken on rent from the BPT in between the years 1940 to 1950. From time to time there have been increases in the rent payable by the petitioners. Affairs of the BPT are regulated by the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (MPT Act). The BPT's real estate, including structures, covers an area of about 720 hectares. The land owned by the BPT ranges from Colaba to Ravli junction inclusive of PIRPAU, Butcher Island, Titwala and other islands. About 306 hectares of the area are occupied by the lessees of the BPT holding leasehold rights under different tenures.

3. The BPT entertained a feeling that the real estate owned by them was not yielding as much of an income as it should. Therefore, it inserted an advertisement which was published in various newspapers including The Times of India issue dated 30th August, 1978. The advertisement invited proposals from Consultancy firms/Practising Valuers to undertake an exercise to ascertain the market value of lands of the entire BPT, including land in the docks and bunders. The scope of service expected from the consultancy firms was -

(i) To give an estimate of the market value of the BPT land, dividing them into convenient zones, and blocks to be delineated on the Port Trust estates and having regard to the various factors relevant to the valuation for the Port Trust estates ...............in all the land a admeasuring about 1800 acres....

(ii) The estimate of market value should indicate values of lands both in vacant and occupied conditions and for different users;

(iii) The market value should be given separately for each zone or block in two relevant dates, viz. as on 1st January, 1975 and 1st January, 1978.....(the latter date being later on varied to 1st January, 1980.)

(iv) To lay down a general formula for the guiding principles to enable the Port Trust to arrive at land values rationally at a future date and realise a fair share of the future increase in land values periodically.

The Consultants submitted a report on December 25, 1980. They explained their approach and methodology in Chapter III. It was made clear that the complexity of the assignment involved many aspects and that data had been collected from the records of the different departments of the BPT, physical verification of the conditions at various sites, from Associate Expert Valuers, from the legal department, development plans of Greater Bombay, economic factors influencing the land value in the city like Bombay, on the basis of land and building sale transactions from 1970 onwards, and prevailing price of sale transactions in respect of land and structures etc.etc.. The Consultants had deployed a team of Management Consultants, Economists with assistants, Chartered Accountants, Urban Planners, Civil Engineers, legal experts valuation experts and assistants. In Chapter IV of the report, the Consultants dealt with the practice influencing land prices in Bombay. While dealing with this aspect it was opined that the original reason for giving the BPT lands on lease was to support and indirectly assist the growth of Bombay Port. The Port having grown to its present dimensions, the original purpose could be declared as having come to an end. In fact the development had been of such a magnitude that the Port had come to a saturation point. Continuance of the leasing system at subsidised rates for a long time would mean contributing to the over-crowding and depriving the BPT of its right to use land for the development of the Port and its facilities. This necessitated an increase in the rent and its periodical re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1990 Supreme(Bom) 392

Cases Referred (3)