SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Guj) 211

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.S.Shah, R.A.MEHTA
GULAM KADAR AHMADBHAI MEMON - Appellant
Versus
SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent
S.C.A. 9332 of 1995
Decided On : 04/20/1998

Advocates Appeared: G.N.DESAI, H.M.MEHTA, KETAN DAVE, M.B.FARUQI

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, 1950 - Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Public Interest Litigation - Arts. 25, 26 - Sec. 212 to clearing Road Line Part of Mosque to be cleared - Road Plan notified - Objection called for - Standing Committee fresh Road line of 60 wide - Objection filed - Objection rejected order to remove demarked portion - Held, acquisition of a place of worship even in its entirety may be justified.

       In a given case the extent of public hardship may justify acquisition of a place of worship; in another the public need may be pressing enough to justify acquisition of any other private property but not acquisition of the entire religious place or a part thereof, because the availability of a few square metres of additional road land may not give anything more than a mere symmetry. Of course, where the demands of vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic are so heavy, acquisition of a place of worship even in its entirety may be justified.

       [Para 28]

       (b) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Sec. 212 - Order passed - Violative of places of worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991 - Held, does not prohibit the State from acquiring any place of worship.

       It does not prohibit the State from acquiring any place of worship or any part thereof for a public purpose such as acquisition of property for widening the road.

       [Para 7]

       (c) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 - Sec. 212 - Order passed - Order contravene resolution dt. 3.5.1981 of standing committee - Held, not meant to be all time prohibition on acquisition of religious places.

       A perusal of the said Resolution of 1951 shows that it was not meant to be an all time prohibition on acquisition of religious places but it was meant to be one time resolution passed in the context of the road alignment which was being sanctioned on that particular occasion.

       [Para 8]

       (d) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Sec. 212 - Whether order passed under Sec. 212 not valid due to improper proceeding - Procedure adopted - Held, in Court view said contention deserve to be rejected.

       The procedure for inviting objections was already followed by the State Government under the T.P. Act before sanctioning the development plan and thereafter by the Surat Municipal Corporation under the provisions of Secs. 210 and 212 of the Act. It, therefore, cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the relevant Statutes was not followed before the decision was taken to prescribe the road line in question so as to widen it from 40 to 60.

       [Para 9]

M. S. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS public interest petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenges the constitutional validity of provisions of Sec. 212 of the Bombay provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the B. P. M. C. Act or the Act) on the touchstone of Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and also challenges the orders dated 7th October 1995 (Annexures C and D to the petition) requiring the trustees of the Trusts managing Mohammad Arif Minara masjid and Golwali alias Halkara Masjid in Surat to demolish and remove a part of the aforesaid two mosques for clearing the road line as set under the provisions of Sec. 212 of the Act.

( 2 ) INITIALLY the petition was mainly filed against Surat Municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). Subsequently the trustees of the aforesaid two Trusts managing the aforesaid mosques were added as respondents in order to decide the controversy involved in this petition completely and effectually. Notice was issued by this Court and ad interim relief was granted directing the respondents to maintain status quo. In response to the notice affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. In view of the amendment of the petition the respondents filed further affidavit-in-reply. Thereafter, rejoinder affidavits by the petitioner and sur-rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the respondents have been filed. With the consent of the learned Counsels for all the parties, the petition was heard for final disposal.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petition, briefly stated, are as under :3. 1. Mohammad Arif Minara Masjid (popularly known and hereinafter referred to as the Minarawali Masjid) and Golwali alias Halkara Masjid (popularly known and hereinafter referred to as the Golwali Masjid) are situate on the Bhagal main road in the city of Surat. Minarawali Masjid is managed by Mohammad Arif Minara masjid Trust, a wakf which is registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public trusts Act, 1950. According to the petitioners, the said mosque was existing even in the year 1867 when the Collector, Surat issued a Sanad in respect of the mosque to the then mutawali thereof. Golwali Masjid is managed by another wakf Golwali alias Halkara Masjid Trust, which is also registered as a Public Trust under the aforesaid Act of 1950. 3. 2. Under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the T. P. Act), the Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) has been constituted for preparing the development plans for Surat Urban Area. The suda prepared a development plan for the area including the Bhagal main road and certain other areas of Surat city. The Corporation had issued a public notice on 9th November 1988 inviting objections against the draft development plan which also included the provision for widening of Bhagal main road on which the aforesaid two mosques abut. After considering the objections, the Standing Committee of the municipal Corporation passed a resolution on 20th May 1989 under Sec. 210 of the b. P. M. C. Act prescribing a fresh road line in substitution of the existing road line. The said fresh road line is now called regular line of the street. As per the said sanctioned development plan in place of the existing 40 ft. wide road line, 60 ft. wide regular line of the street was provided on the aforesaid site in question which is on a junction of five roads. 3. 3. Respondent No. 2, i. e. , the Director of Planning of the Corporation issued notices dated 7th September 1995 under the provisions of sub-sec. (1a) of Sec. 212 of the B. P. M. C. Act calling upon the trustees of the aforesaid two mosques to demolish and remove a portion of the respective mosques so as to fall in line with the sanctioned regular road line, as per the plan sanctioned in the year 1989. The trustees of the aforesaid two wakfs lodged their objections including the objections to the effect that the





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top