1962 (4) TMI 94 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Land Resumption Notification Confirmed under Section 81

MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF THE CITY OF JABALPUR Versus STATE OF MP.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notification issued under Section 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act, allowing the State Government to resume ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notification issued under Section 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act.2. Authority of the State Government to resume land transferred to the Municipal Committee.3. Applicability of Section 38 of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, post-repeal.4. Pleading and procedural aspects regarding the identity of the transferor.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notification Issued Under Section 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act:The primary issue was whether the notification issued by the State Government under Section 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act, resuming a strip of land from the Jabalpur Corporation for public use, was valid. The Court noted that Section 81 empowers the State Government to resume immovable property transferred to the Corporation for public purposes without paying compensation, except for the amount paid for the transfer and the market value of any permanent buildings or works executed on the land by the Corporation. The Court concluded that the notification was valid under Section 81, as the land was required for a public purpose, i.e., making a public road.2. Authority of the State Government to Resume Land Transferred to the Municipal Committee:The Court examined whether the State Government had the authority to resume land initially transferred to the Municipal Committee of Jabalpur by the Government of Central Provinces. The Court established that the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, as the successor to the Government of Central Provinces, had the right to resume the land. The Court emphasized that the Jabalpur Corporation, as the successor to the Municipal Committee, held the land subject to the same conditions and obligations as the original transfer.3. Applicability of Section 38 of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, Post-Repeal:The appellant argued that the resumption of land could not be justified under Section 38 of the repealed Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922. The Court noted that the Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1948, repealed the earlier Act but included a saving clause in Section 3(1), which deemed all obligations and contracts of the Municipal Committee to have been transferred to the Corporation. However, the Court found it unnecessary to decide on the applicability of Section 38, as the resumption was valid under Section 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act.4. Pleading and Procedural Aspects Regarding the Identity of the Transferor:The Court criticized the procedural handling of the case, particularly the departure from the pleadings during the High Court proceedings. The appellant-Corporation had not contested in its writ petition that the Government of Central Provinces was the transferor. The Court emphasized that parties should be confined to their pleadings to ensure orderliness and avoid surprise. The Court found that the High Court's assumption that the Central Government was the transferor was unfounded. The Court clarified that the transfer was made by the Government of Central Provinces, as evidenced by the communication dated April 5, 1930, and the terms used therein.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notification issued under Section 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act, allowing the resumption of land by the State Government for public purposes. The appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs due to the procedural missteps that misled the High Court.