1960 (11) TMI 121 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds old Municipal Committee under new Act, validates land sale, emphasizes prompt elections

M. PENTIAH AND OTHERS Versus MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA AND OTHERS.

M. PENTIAH AND OTHERS Versus MUDDALA VEERAMALLAPPA AND OTHERS. - 1961 AIR 1107, 1961 (2) SCR 295 Issues Involved:1. Continuation of the old Municipal Committee under the new Act.2. Validity of the sale of land by the Municipal Committee.3. Bona fides of the appellants in filing the petition.Detailed Analysis:1. Continuation of the old Municipal Committee under the new Act:The primary issue was whether the members of the Municipal Committee elected under the Hyderabad Municipal and Town Committees Act, 1951, continued to hold office after the enactment of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956. The appellants contended that the term of the respondents expired three years after the new Act came into force, and thus they had no authority to function as members of the Committee.The Court analyzed Section 320 of the new Act, which states that any Committee constituted under the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been constituted under the new Act, and its members shall continue to hold office until the first meeting of the Committee is called under Section 35 of the new Act. Section 35 provides that the first meeting of the Committee shall be called by the Collector within thirty days of the publication of the names of members elected under the new Act. Since no such election had been held, the first meeting had not been called, and thus the old Committee continued to function.The Court held that Section 320(1)(a) provides a transitory measure, allowing the old Committee to continue until a new Committee is constituted under the new Act. The Court rejected the argument that the term of the old Committee should be limited to three years, as this would lead to an indefinite continuation of the old Committee, contrary to the legislative intent of democratizing municipal administration.2. Validity of the sale of land by the Municipal Committee:The appellants argued that the sale of land by the Municipal Committee was ultra vires the provisions of the Act, as the land was acquired for constructing a market and could only be transferred to the Government under Section 76.The Court examined Sections 72(f), 73, 74, and 76 of the Act, which vest property in the Committee and allow for its transfer to the Government. However, Section 77 explicitly provides the Committee with the power to transfer immovable property, subject to certain conditions: a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority, compliance with rules made under the Act, and, if the property was vested by the Government, with the Government's sanction.The Court held that the sale of land to third parties was valid as the conditions under Section 77 were met, including the Government's sanction. The Court dismissed the argument that Section 76 restricted the Committee's power to transfer property only to the Government, as Section 77 provides an express power to sell property, subject to conditions that safeguard against improper alienations.3. Bona fides of the appellants in filing the petition:The High Court had found that the appellants lacked bona fides and that the petition was not conceived in the public interest. However, the Supreme Court did not find any material to support this finding and acknowledged that the appellants had brought to light the extraordinary situation caused by the Government's inaction in implementing the Act.The Court emphasized that the appellants' actions were neither mala fide nor frivolous, as they highlighted the need for the Government to take immediate steps to hold elections for the Municipal Committee to replace the body constituted under the old Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the continuation of the old Committee under the new Act until a new Committee is constituted through elections. The Court also validated the sale of land by the Committee, provided it complied with the conditions laid down in Section 77. The Court did not find any lack of bona fides on the part of the appellants in filing the petition.