1830 32 of 1981
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
UR Lalit VN Ganpule AB Lal and Ms Punam Kumari for the Petitioners
VC Mahajan Ms A Subhashini PH Parekh AS Bhasme and AM Khanwilkar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA J
The petitioners in these petitions under Arti cle 32 of the Constitution hold land within the city of Sholapur in the State of Maharashtra
According to the petitioners development plan has been sanctioned with regard to land situated m the city of Sholapur including the peti tioners  land under the Maharashtra Regional and Town plan ning Act 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966 and some land of the petitioners was re served for public purpose under that Act
The Urban Land Ceiling  Regulation Act 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act was brought into force on 28th February 1976 and proceedings for acquisition of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit placed under the Act were initiated against the petitioners
These writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs a It may be declared that the Urban Ceiling Act does not apply to lands reserved for a public purpose under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 bThe proceedings for determination of ceil ing be declared void and quashed so far as the lands are reserved for public purpose 619 c The State Government be restrained from taking any action under Section 103 of the Ceiling Act d The final statement under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act be amended suitably e A Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus be issued restraining the State Government or its agents from acquiring andor taking possession of final plots Nos 26 22 42 28A and 44A1 f Sections 10 11 and 23 of the Ceiling Act be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution g Any other order andor direction as this Hon ble Court may deem fit be passed
It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 125 of the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966 contemplates inter alia that any land required reserved or designated in a development plan for a public purpose shall be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 whereas Section 126 thereof contains the procedure for acquisition of land required for public purposes
According to learned counsel if land is acquired as contemplated by Sections 125 and 126 aforesaid the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shall apply to the acquisition of the said land with the modification that the market value of the land shall be computed as contemplated by sub section 3 of Section 126 whereas if the land was acquired under the Act compensation payable would be much less as contemplated by Section 11 of the Act and that too with a ceiling of two lakhs of rupees as provided by sub section 6 thereof
It has been urged that it is left to the sweet will of the authorities concerned to acquire land either under Sections 125 and 126 of the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966 or under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and that since in the event of proceedings for acquisition being taken under Section 10 of the Act as is sought to be done in the case of the petitioners the compensation payable would be far less than the compensation payable if the acquisition is made under the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966 discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution was writ large and in this view of the matter the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed in these writ petitions
Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the 620 opinion that none of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions can be granted to the petitioners
At the very outset it may be pointed out that the Act has been placed in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution at SI
No 132 and consequently comes under the protective umbrella of Article 31 B of the Constitution
In Maharao Sahib Shri Bheem Singh vs Union of India and others 1985 Suppl
1 SCR Page 862 it has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court that the Act is constitutionally valid save and except Section 271 to the extent mentioned in the judgment
With regard to sub section 6 of Section 11 it has specifically been held at page 879 of the Report that this sub section which provides that compensation payable under Section 11 shall in no case exceed two lakhs of rupees is valid
The amount thus payable is not illusory and the provision is not confiscatory
Rupees two lakhs are not like a earthing even if the excess land may be a fortune
In this connection it may be pointed out that it has not been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of the Act which have been impugned in the present writ petitions in any way damage or destroy a basic or essential feature of the Constitution or its basic structure
No statutory provi sion either in the Act or even in the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966 has been brought to our notice excluding the opera tion of the Act with regard to lands reserved for public purpose under the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966
On the other hand there is a specific overriding provision in Section 42 of the Act which provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything incon sistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court Tribunal or other authority
It is in this view of the matter that we are of the opinion that none of the relief prayed for in the present writ petitions can be granted
What has however been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that notwithstanding the specific relief f referred to above the petitioners are really not chal lenging the validity of Sections 10 11  23 of the Act but they are challenging the action which is being taken with regard to the petitioners  land on the ground that it is discriminatory
We find no substance in this submission either
In Union of India etc
vs Valluri Basavaiah Chaucer etc
 1979 3 SCR Page 802 it was pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court that the primary object and the purpose of the Act as the long title and preamble show is to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit to regulate the construction of 621 buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein and with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good in furtherance of the Directive Principles of Article 39b and c
That this was the object and the purpose of the Act has been reiterated in a recent decision of this Court in State of Gujarat  others vs Parshottamdas Ramdas Patel  Others 1988 1 SCR Page 997
It is in this background that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners about discrimination in the matter of implementation or taking action under the Act has to be considered
While elaborating this argument of dis crimination it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that if land belonging to A  and B  within an urban agglomeration is reserved for a public purpose under development scheme and A  is holding land within ceiling area whereas B  holds land in excess of such ceiling area A  will get compensation under the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966 whereas B  will get compensation under the Ceiling Act and the basis and method of compensation will drastical ly vary
In support of this submission reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust  Another vs Vithal Rao  Others 1973 3 SCR Page 39
In that case land was sought to be acquired under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act
In a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the validity of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act was challenged inter alia on the ground that the said Act was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it empowered the acquisition of lands at prices lower than those which could have been payable if they had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act
The writ petition was allowed by the High Court and it was held that paragraphs 102 and 103 in so far as they added a new clause 3a to section 23 and a proviso to sub section 2 of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were ultra vires as violating the guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution
Suffice it to say so far as this submission is con cerned that the land to the extent which falls within the ceiling area stands in a class different from the land which is in excess of the ceiling area and is liable to be de clared surplus to give effect to the purpose and object of the Act  What is the purpose and object of the Act has already been noticed earlier
Further unlike the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act 1936 the validity whereof was chal lenged in the case of Vithal Rao 622 supra the Act has been placed in the 9th Schedule
As a result thereof the Act comes within the protective umbrella of Article 31 B of the Constitution which was not available to the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act
The decision in the case of Vithal Rao supra came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court with reference to Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 in Prakash Chand Amichand Shah vs State of Gujarat and others 1986 1 SCC Page 581
It was held In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant it is necessary to look at the object of the legislation in question as a whole
The object of the Act is not just acquiring a bit of land here or a bit of land there for some public purpose
It consists of several activities which have as their ulti mate object the orderly development of an urban area
It envisages the preparation of a development plan allocation of land for various private and public uses preparation of a Town Planning Scheme and making provi sions for future development of the area in question
The various aspects of a Town Plan ning Scheme have already been set out
On the final Town Planning Scheme coming into force under Section 53F of the Act there is an automatic vesting of all lands required by the local authority
It is not a case where the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have to be set in motion either by the Collec tor or by the Government
 It was further held The provision under consideration in the above decision corresponds to Section 11 and to Section 84 of the Act which we are now considering
Section 59 of the Nagpur Improve ment Trust Act 1936 provided that the Trust might with the previous sanction of the State Government acquire land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as modified by the provisions of the said Act for carrying out any of the purposes of the said Act
But the provisions which are questioned before us are of a different pattern altogether
They deal with the preparation of a scheme for the development of the land
On the final scheme coming into force the lands affected by the scheme which are needed for the local authori ty for purposes of the scheme automatically vest in the local authority
There is 623 no need to set in motion the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 either as it is or as modified in the case of acquisition under Section 11 or Section 84 of the Act
Then the Town Planning Officer is authorised to deter mine whether any reconstituted plot can be given to a person whose land is affected by the scheme
Under Section 513 of the Act the final scheme as sanctioned by the Government has the same effect as if it were enacted in the Act
The scheme has to be read as part of the Act
Under Section 53 of the Act all rights of the private owners in the original plots would determine and certain consequen tial rights in favour of the owners would arise therefrom
If in the scheme reconsti tuted or final plots are allotted to them they become owners of such final plots subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Offi cer in the final scheme
In some cases the original plot of an owner might completely be allotted to the local authority for a public purpose
Such private owner may be paid compensation or a reconstituted plot in some other place
It may be a smaller or a bigger plot
It may be that in some cases it may not be possible to allot a final plot at all
Sections 67 to 71 of the Act provide for cer tain financial adjustments regarding payment of money to the local authority or to the owners of the original plots
The development and planning carried out under the Act is pri marily for the benefit of public
The local authority is under an obligation to function according to the Act
The local authority has to bear a part of the expenses of development
It is in one sense a package deal
The pro ceedings relating to the scheme are not like acquisition proceedings under the Land Acqui sition Act 1894
Nor are the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 made applicable either without or with modifications as in the case of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act 1936
We do not understand the decision in Nagpur Improvement Trust case as laying down generally that wherever land is taken away by the government under a separate statute com pensation should be paid under the Land Acqui sition Act 1894 only and if there is any difference between the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the compensation payable under the statute con cerned the acquisition under the statute would be discriminatory
That case is distinguisha ble from the present case
 624 In the instant case also the purpose and object of the Act being entirely different from just acquiring a bit of land here or a bit of land there for some public purpose and the Act being a serf contained Code having an overriding provision in Section 42 the decision in the case of Vithal Rao supra is wholly inapplicable in so far as acquisition of surplus land under the Act is concerned
It was also urged that if one person holds land in excess of ceiling area and the excess therein is reserved for a public purpose under the development scheme there will still be discriminatory results if the land in excess of ceiling is reserved for different purposes
According to learned counsel if the purpose of reservation is construc tion of buildings the land will be given compensation under the Ceiling Act whereas when the purpose of reservation is parks gardens etc
compensation would be given under the Maharashtra Act 37 of 1966
The result according to learned counsel is discriminatory
This submission again has appar ently no substance inasmuch as the provisions of the Ceiling Act are applicable with regard to vacant land and if for some fortuitous circumstances a particular category of land does not fail within the definition of vacant land the provisions with regard to vacant land can obviously not be applied to such land
Here again the lands failing under the two categories constitute separate classes and cannot consequently be treated alike
Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to some other cases wherein a similar view as in the case of Vithal Rao supra was taken but we do no consider it necessary to deal with those cases separately for the rea sons already stated above
With regard to the submission of learned counsel that the question as to whether a land reserved for public purpose under the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966 should be acquired under that Act or under Section 10 of the Act has been left to the sweet will of the author ity concerned we are of the opinion that it is not so
Once the land falls beyond the ceiling limit prescribed by the Act and is capable of being acquired as surplus land under Section 10 of the Act it would be wholly inappropriate to acquire the same very land or a portion thereof under the Maharashtra Act No 37 of 1966 inasmuch as it would inter alia apparently result in misuse of public funds by granting higher compensation when the purpose of acquisition can be achieved on payment of the lesser amount of compensation prescribed in Section 11 of the Act
In the case of Parshottamdas Patel supra the State Government of Gujarat issued a notification under section 41 of the Land 625 Acquisition Act 1894 stating that the lands of the respond ents were likely to be needed for the public purpose of providing housing accommodation for the employees of the Municipal Corporation
Subsequently a notification under Section 6 of the said Act declaring that the aforesaid lands along with the other lands were needed for the said public purpose was also made
In the meantime the Act came into force and the respondents filed writ petitions contending inter alia that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act should be proceeded with and the acquisition proceedings to the extent it related to the surplus land under the ceiling law should be dropped
The writ petitions were allowed
Reversing the judgment of the High Court this Court held The declaration made by the High Court in these cases that the land acquisition proceedings did not suffer from an infirmity which indirectly suggests that the proceedings should go on is again erroneous
It is open to the State Government to drop the land acquisi tion proceedings and to withdraw the lands from acquisition under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
We are informed that the State Government has in fact subsequently withdrawn these lands from acquisition
The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 cannot therefore have any beating on the question whether the lands in question are vacant lands or not for purposes of the ceil ing law contained in the Act
When the lands in question or bulk of them are likely to be acquired under the ceiling law by paying compensation as provided therein it would not be proper to compel the Government to acquire them under the provisions of the Land Acquisi tion Act 1894
As already stated the Act has the overriding effect on all other laws
 In view of the foregoings discussion we find no merit in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed
There shall however be no order as to costs
Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The appellant plaintiff who was an employee of the respondent company was dismissed from service on the bais of a domestic enquiry held against him in respect of certain charges of misconduct
Thereupon he filed a civil suit before the Court of Munsiff and sought the relief of back wages and injunction not to give effect to the order of dismissal The respondents in their written statement raised inter alia the plea that the suit was not maintainable as the relief sought was available to the plaintiff under section 2A of the 
The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit
The High Court in revision held that the nature of the relief which was sought by the appellant plaintiff was such which could only be granted under the  and therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant i on the basis of the language of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the civil court had jurisdiction to try all kinds of suits except those which were either expressly or impliedly barred and the High Court was not right in reaching the conclusion that it was impliedly barred ii as the remedy under the was discretionary it could not he said that there was a remedy available to the appellant under the scheme of the Act and thus the jurisdiction of the civil court could not be barred by implication
On the other hand it was contend ed on behalf of the respondents that i the relief sought by the appellant in substance was the relief of reinstate ment with backwages which relief was available only in the  ii the Act itself provided the procedure and remedy and it was not open to the appellant to approach the civil court for getting the relief which he could get only under the scheme of the Act and iii the discretion of the Government to make a reference or not was not arbitrary
Dismissing the appeal this Court
641 HELD 1 It is clear that wherever the jurisdiction of the civil court was expressly or impliedly barred the civil court will have no jurisdiction
644B 2 It is clear that except under the industrial law under the law of contract and the civil law an employee whose services are terminated could not seek the relief of reinstatement or backwages
At best he could seek the relief of damages for breach of contract
3 The manner in which the relief has been framed by the appellant in this case although he seeks a declaration and injunction but in substance it is nothing but the relief of reinstatement and backwages
This relief could only be available to a workman under the 
644C D 4 The discretion of the State Government for making a reference under section 125 of the is not arbitrary and it would not be said that the reference to the labour court or tribunal is not available to a worker who raises an industrial dispute
646G Bombay Union of Journalists  Ors
vs The State of Bombay  Anr   Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd vs Ramratan Mahato AIR 1973 Cal 258 Dhulabhai etc
vs State of Madhya Pradesh   Nanoo Asan Madhavan vs State of Kerala 1970 Vol
I LLJ Kerala 272 referred to
5 In view of the language of section 10 read with section 125 of the  an adequate remedy was available to the appellant under the scheme of the itself which is the Act which provides for the relief of reinstatement and backwages which in fact the appellant sought before the civil court by filing a suit
648B 6 The scheme of the clearly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court by implication in respect of remedies which are available under the Indus trial Disputes Act and for which a complete procedure and machinery has been provided in this Act
649F G