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

1994 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 24

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V.S. Sirpurkar, S.C. Dharmadhikari, JJ
Special Land Acquisition Officer – Appellant
Versus
Partnership Firm – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2745 of 1987



Advocates:
For the Appellants: Shri Kapse
For the Respondents: Shri Kotwal

Court ruled authority has jurisdiction to acquire land including non-residential structures for public safety despite the absence of prior notice.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - Sections 82, 83(j), 88 and 93 - Acquisition of land for reconstruction of buildings - Legal authority of Land Acquisition Officer to include non-residential structures under the Act - The learned single Judge erred in ruling that the acquisition was invalid due to a lack of notice and hearing prior to issuing a certificate of repair costs; the court held that such requirements do not apply under the Act, and the definition of 'building' includes all structures regardless of their residential status. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of notice and hearing - The principles of natural justice are not absolute and do not extend to the issuance of repair cost certificates under the Act. Application of these principles must be contextual to avoid absurd outcomes. (Paras 5, 6)

Table of Content
1. ownership and structure condition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenges to land acquisition. (Para 3)
3. discussion on authority and jurisdiction issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. final decision on appeal. (Para 9)

1. Haji Abdulla Noor Mohammad Machiswala Charitable Trust was the owner of two plots of land situated at D' Lima Street, 'E' Ward, of Mazgaon Division. On the plot of land admeasuring approximately 162.21 sq. meters, building bearing No. 142/146 was standing, while on the other plot of land admeasuring approximately 1162.21 sq. meters, building berating No. 385 was constructed. Both the buildings were in dilapidated condition and required heavy and major repairs. The buildings were used for the purpose of residence and buildings were liable for payment of repairs and reconstruction cess in accordance with the provisions of S.82 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Adjoining to Building No. 385 on the plot of land admeasuring 1162.21 sq. meters, certain sheds and garages were constructed and they were in occupation of respondent No. 1 which is partnership firm, and is used for the purpose of manufacturing compressors. The sheds in which the partnership firm manufactures compressors is separately assessed for house property tax by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.

2. The Board constituted under the Act is required to carry out repairs in respect of buildings on which building repairs and reconstruction cess is levied. S.83(j) of the Act provides that the buildings which are exclusively used for non - residential purposes are not liable for payment of repairs and reconstruction cess. S.88 requires the Board to undertake structural repairs on satisfaction that any building which is occupied by a person is in ruinous or dangerous condition and is likely to fall unless structural repairs are carried out and the building is rendered fit and safe for habitation. Sub-section (3) of S.88 of the Act provides that if the Board is of opinion that the cost of structural repairs to a building would exceed certain amount per square metre, then the Board shall issue a certificate to that effect. The Executive Engineer of Bombay Housing and Area Development Board issued such certificate on January 25, 1980 in respect of the building standing on two plots of lands. The certificate recites that the cost of the structural repairs to the buildings exceeds Rs. 120/- per square metre and the buildings are not capable of being repaired to render fit and safe for habitation at reasonable expenses.
On July 16, 1986, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Re - construction) of Housing Board addressed letter to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra proposing that the land admeasuring 1324.42 sq. metres with existing buildings in property bearing City Survey Nos. 55 and 56 at Mazgaon Division should be acquired for constructing a new building on the same site. The proposal sets out that the plans have been approved by City Engineer and the scheme is approved by the Board and the cost of the proposed building is estimated to be Rs. 80.70 lakhs. The proposal further recites that the number of occupants in the existing building will be accommodated in new building and in addition, accommodation could be provided for 120 residential and 22 non - residential tenements. The proposal also sets out that portion of the building No. 385 has been demolished up to first floor level and similarly Building No. 145 has been demolished. The State Government was requested to accord approval to the proposal in accordance with sub-section (1) of S.93 of the Act. The proposal covers the area of both the plots and the sheds in which respondent No. 1 firm is carrying on manufacturing activities also falls within the area proposed to be acquired. The Government of Maharashtra by resolution dated September 10, 1986 passed in exercise of powers of sub-section (1) of S.93 of the Act gave approval to













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