The provisions S.90 and S.91 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act provide alternative modes for land acquisition, and prior attempts to negotiate are not conditions precedent for compulsory acquisition.

1. This is a petitioner's appeal against the summary dismissal of their writ petition by Mr. Justice Kantawala. A part of a certain land belonging to the petitioners was being acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act . The land admeasures 3,118.63 square yards and is situated at Fergusson Road, Lower Parel, Bombay. The notification under S.4 was published on 27th February 1964 and the notification under S.6 on 20th May, 1965. Both the notifications stated the purpose of the acquisition "for the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the construction of a primary school." Soon after the notification under S.6 the petition was filed on 15th July 1965 and it raises substantially one ground of attack against the acquisition proceedings. It is that ground which is also being pressed before us. The ground is that the requirements of S.90 and S.91 have not been fulfilled by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for whom the acquisition was undertaken, and therefore the entire acquisition is vitiated and illegal and should be set aside (S.90 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act deals with the subject of acquisition of immoveable property by agreement and S.91 provides for what is to happen when the immoveable property cannot be acquired by an agreement. S.90 provides that the Commissioner on behalf of the Corporation shall acquire any immoveable property on such terms and at such rates or prices or at rates or prices not exceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Improvements Committee of the Corporation whenever it is necessary or expedient for him for the purpose of this Act or the Act so provides to acquire a property. Other ancillary powers have also been given to the Commissioner having regard to the requirements of the schemes undertaken by the Corporation and property being needed for such schemes. Sub-section (4) of S.90 gives power to the Commissioner to execute contracts and other instruments relating to the acquisition of immoveable property and prescribes the mode in which such acquisition shall be made. Sub-section (5) provides that no contract for the acquisition of immoveable property or any interest therein or any right thereto shall be binding on the Corporation if the contract is not executed in accordance with sub-section (4). Sub-section (6) applies all the provisions of S.90 to any variation of such contract. Then S.91(1) provides as follows :
"Whenever the Commissioner is unable to acquire any immoveable property under the last preceding section by agreement the State Government may, in their discretion, upon the application of the Commissioner, made with the approval of the Improvements Committee and subject to the other provisions of this Act order proceedings to be taken for acquiring the same on behalf of the Corporation, as if such property were land needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act , 1870."
The whole challenge to the acquisition in the present case is based upon this provision of the Municipal law. It has been urged that the power of the Government is only to acquire for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act . In this case the acquisition is "for the Bombay Municipal Corporation" and so far as the Bombay Municipal Corporation is concerned, it is merely a creature of statute and has to comply with the requirements of that statute. Therefore if S.91 prescribes a certain procedure which has to be undertaken before the acquisition of any immoveable property can be made for the Corporation then the Corporation is bound to fulfil that mode first before it can launch upon any acquisition under the Land Acq