I
'
## •
_Ii'-_
108'7
STATE OF GUJARAT A
_v._
PATEL BAVA KARSAN & ORS.
_February_ 22, 1980
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P, S, KAILASAM AND AD. KosHAL, JJ.] B
_and others_ v. _Ra1nan Lal_ _Govi11d_ _Ram_ _am! others,_ [1975] 3 SCR 935, this Court
while fo11owing the case _of_ _Chhaganlal Magan/al_ upheld a provision of the
Bomb&y Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1963
\Vhich was in _pari mnteria_ \Vith section 233 of the Gujnraf Act. [1090A-C]
(iii) Once the property belonging to the Gov~rnment or semi-Government
bodies is held to fall within a particular class and therefore a reasonable classification, \Vhether a civil rem'edy is given or not would not be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution, [10900-F]
_Constitution_ _of_ _India_ 1950, Artich'.~ 14 _and_ 19 _&_ _Gujarat_ _Ji,funicipality_ _Act_
_Sections_ 233 _llltd_ _236-Statute_ _empowering eviction from municipal_ _pre1nises-_
_An appeal to go1·ernment against the order_ _of_ _eviction provided-Constitutional_
_validity_ _of_ _prorisfons._
Section 233 of the Gujarat Municipality Act 'empowered the Chief Officer
of the ~iunicip[l.fity to evict persons from municipal premises.
Respondent No. 1 in the appeals was required by a notice in pur8uance uf
the provisions of section 233(1) of the Act to hand OVer possession of a piece
of land to the J\iunicipality on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupa~
tion thereof\ The respondent assailed the notice· in proceedings under Ar_tic.l'e
226 of the Constitution, and the only point in controversy was '\vhether or not
section 233 of ihe Act under which the proceedings for eviction were taken wa~
oonstitutional!y v&lid. The High Court in view of a previous decision of that
court held th<1t section 233 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution wa~
- ultra vires.
In th~ appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of th'e respondents :
(1) that the _Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's_ case was not correctly decided
because though in _Chhaganlal Maganlal's_ case there was a right to appe::il t0
a Civi1 Court and the right to take evidence was given by the Statute concerned,
in the former. the relevant statute contained no such provisions, and (2) that
the provisions of the Gujarat Act were violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Allowing the appeals,
##### c
D
E
HEtD: (l)(i) The judgment of the High Court is set aside a.nd the order F
of the Chief Officer dated 9-3-66 affirmed, [l090G]
(ii) Jn the case of _Northern_ _Indian Catererl Private Limited_ v. _State_ _of_
_Punjab and others._ [1967] 3 SCR, 399, this Court while considering a statute
\vhos'e provisions \Vere almost similar to those of section 233 of the Gujarat Act
took the same vie\V .as the High Court and struck down the Statute. This decision
held the field until it \\'as ultimately overruled in the case of _ChhaRanlal Magan-_ G
_la/,_ [1975] 1 SCR l. In a later decision in _Ahmedabad_ _Municipal_ _(,'orporatiun_
(iii) Once the property belonging to the Gov~rnment or semi-Government
bodies is held to fall within a particular class and therefore a reasonable classification, \Vhether a civil rem'edy is given or not would not be violative of Article
H
15-138SCI/80
A
B
c
1088 SUPREME COURT IiEPORTS [1980) 2 S.C.R ..
(iv) Under St:ction 236, the respondents have a right to file· an appeal to the
Government against the impugned order of eviction. ·rhis section also contains
a specific p:-ovision under v.hich the delay can be condoned if sufficient cau1e
is shown to the sutisfaction of the appellate authority nan1ely th'e Governnt:!nt.
It will be open to the respondents to file an appeal which \v'ill be di.;;posed ot by
the Government in accordance v1ith lrnv. [10900-H, 1091A]
(2) The contention that the provisions of the Gujarat Act v.rere violative
of .Article 19 of the Constitution was expressly considered and negatived in
_Af1111edabad_ _.\1unicipa/ Corpnro!ion & ors._ v. _Rl1111anlal_ _Govindara1n_ & _Ors._
[1090E-FJ
CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTJON _:_ Civil Appeal Nos. 1596 and
1224 of 1970.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31-1-1970 of the Gujarat
High Court in SCA No. 438/66.
_T._ _U._ _Mehta,_ _D._ _N._ _Mishra_ and _K._ _J._ _John_ for the appellant
CA 1224/70 & RR. 1596/70. .
I,
_S._ C. _Patel_ and _M._ _N._ _Shrvfj_ for the Appellant CA No. 1596/70.
D _M._ _K._ _Ramamurthi_ and _Vineet Kumar_ for Respondent No. 1 CA
l'lo. 1224/70.
E
F
G
_S._ C. _Patel_ and _M._ _N._ _Shroff_ for Respondent No. 2 CA No. 1224/
70.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against a
judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 31-1-1970 issuing a writ of
mandamus to the Rajkot Municipality directing it to desist from
enforcing a notice dated 9-3-1966 served on respondent No. 1 and
requiring him in pursuance of the provisions of s. 233 (1) of t11e Gujarat
Municipality Act (hereinafter referred to as the Gujarat Act') to hand
over possession of a piece of land to the Municipality on the ground
that he was in unauthorised occupation thereof. The only point in
controversy before the High Court was as to whether or not s. 233 of
the Gu_jarat Act, under which the proceedings for eviction of the respondent No. 1 were taken, was constitutionally valid. The High Court
in view of a previous decision of that Court held that s. 233 being
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India was _ultra_ _vires._ The
appellants applied for certificate for leave to appeal under Art. 133(1)( c) which was granted; hence this appeal. ###### Section 233 of the Gujarat ~ct runs thus :
"233. _Power_ _to_ _evict certain_ _persons_ _from_ _mzmicipal_
H _premises._ (1) If the Chief Officer is satisfied
( a) that the person authorised to occupy any premises
belonging to the municipality (hereinafter referred to
###### •
'
### • ..
GUJARAT _v._ PATEL BAVA KARSAN _(Fazal_ _Ali,!.)_ I 089
as "the municipal premises") as a tenant or otherwise has
(i) not .paid rent lawfully due from in respect of
such premises for a period of more than two
months, or
(ii) sub-let, without the perm1ss1on of the mumc1pality, the whole or any part of such premises,
or
(iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the
terms, express or implied, under which he is
authorised to occupy such premises, or
(b) that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any
municipal premises,
the Chief Officer may, notwithstandig anything contained in
any law for the time being in force, by notice ~ervcd (i) by
post or (ii) by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some
other conspicuous part of such premises, or (iii) in such
other manner as may be provided in the rules made by the
State Government order that the person as well as any
at.her person who may be in occupation of the whole or any
part of the premises, shall vacate them within one month of
the date of the service of the notice.
(2) Before an order under sub-section (1) is made
against any person the Chief Officer shall inform the person
by notice in writing of the grounds on which the proposed
order is to he made and give him a reasonable opportunity
of tendering an explanation and producing evidence, if any,
and _to_ show cause why such order should not be made, within a period to be specified in such notice. If such person
makes an application to the chief officer for extension of the
period specified in the notice the chief officer may grant the
. same on such terms as to payment and recovery of the amount
claimed in the notice as it deems fit. Any written statement
put in by such person and documents produced in pursuance
of such notice shall be filed with the record of the case und
such person shall be entitled to appear before the authority
proceeding in this connection by advocate, attorney or
B
#### c
D
E
F
H
l'l
#### c
D
E
G
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1930] 2 s.c.a.
pleader. Such notice in writing shall be served in the manner
provided for service of notice under sub-section (1).
,.
It appears that in the case of _Northern India Caterers Pvt. Ltd._ &
whose provisions _Anr._ v. _State of Pun;ab_ were almost similar to those of & _Anr.(1)_ this Court while s. construina a 233 of the Gujarat ~ statutG
Act took the same view as the High Court and struck down the statute.
This decision held the field until it was ultimately overruled in the case
of _Chhagan!al Maganlal(_ _[2]_ _)._
In a later decision in _Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation_ & _Ors._ v_ _Ramanlal Govindram_ & _Ors._ ( [3 ] ) this Court while following the case
of _Chhaganlal Maganlal_ upheld a provision of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1963 which was
in _pari materia_ with s. 233 of the Gujarat Act. Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi appearing for the respondents submitted that _Ahmedabad Muni-_
_cipal Corporation's_ case (supra) was not correctly decided because
though in _Chhaganlal Magan/al's_ case (supra) there was a right to
appeal tc a Civil Court and the right to take evidence was given by
the statute concerned, in the former, the relevant statute contained no
such provision. This contention does not appear to be well-founded
because once property belonging to the Government or semi-Government bodies is held to fall within a particular class and therefore a
reasonable classification, whether a civil remedy is given or not would
not be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution on the broad principle
laid down in _Chhaganlal Maganlal's_ case.
It was also argued that the provisions of the Gujarat Act were
violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution of India. This contention
was expressly considered and negatived by this Court in _Ahmedabad_
_Municipal_ _Corporation_ & _Ors._ v. _Raman/al_ _Govindram_ & _Ors._
(supra) with which we find ourselves in complete agreement. We,
therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High
Court and affirm the order of the Chief Officer dated 9-3-1966.
We might, however, observe that under section 236 of the Gujarat, Act, the respondents have a right to file an appeal to the Government against the impugned order of eviction. This section ~lso
contains a specific provision under which delay can be condoned if
sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the appellate autho
(1) [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399.
(2) [1975] 1 S.C.R. I.
(3) [1975] 3. S.C.R. 935.
,
# .
###### ..
'
### •
~.
/
GUJARAT _v._ PATEL BAVA KARSAN _(Fazal Ali,_ J.) 1091
rity namely the Government. In these circumstances, it will be open _A_
to the respondents to file an appeal to the Government against the
order of eviction passed by the Chief Officer which will be disposed
of by the Government in accordance with the law.
There will be no order as to costs .
B
N.KA. _Appeals_ _allowed._
