il Appeal No 431 of 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated 31 3 1975 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No 2355 of 1974
GL Sanghi KJ John SR Kureshi and D N Mishra for the appellants
I N Shroff and HS Parihar for Respondent No 1
MN Shroff for Respondent No 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI J
The only question that arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the order of acquisition passed by the Municipal Commissioner under section 284J of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 as applicable to Gujarat is invalid and void for non compli ance with section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
The Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad briefly the Corporation by its resolution of December 15 1966 authorised its Commissioner under section 2841 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 briefly the Bombay Act to provide housing accommodation for the poorer classes
In pursuance of this authority of the Corporation the Commissioner passed the impugned order of compulsory acquisition on October 9 1967 under section 284J of the Bombay Act in respect of 33357 sq
of land final plots Nos 11 to 25 of Town Planning Scheme No V of Dariapur Kazipur Ward
Out of this area the land belonging to the appellants measures about 1694 sq
It is averred by the appel lants that this area is predominantly a commercial area and is almost fully built upon
The aforesaid order of compulsory acquisition was pub lished in the official gazette of January 25 1968 and in the local newspapers of February 1011 1968
Individual notices were also served on the concerned parties in ac cordance with law inviting objections from the owners in cluding the appellants which were lodged in due course
These objections were submitted to the Standing Committee by the Commissioner with his suggestions and the Committee by its resolution No 1942 of January 21 1969 approved the said order of compulsory acquisition
The State Government thereafter confirmed the said order on January 6 1972
The appellants had requested for a personal hearing with regard to their objections and their grievance is that the same was denied to them
It is common ground that no personal hearing was given to the appellants with regard to their objections by the Commissioner
Even so a period of nearly five years was taken in the process of finalising the order
After confirmation of the order of acquisition by the Government there is a provision for appeal under Schedule B to the Bombay Act
7 1003 Sc1176 74 The appellants preferred an appeal to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and amongst several other grounds raised the question of the denial of personal hearing to them
The learned Judge of the City Civil Court did not accede to the contention and by his order of April 10 1974 held that the principles of natural justice were satisfied in this case inasmuch as they had been given an opportunity to submit their objections to the acquisition
The appellants then took the matter to the High Court of Gujarat under article 227 of the Constitution where the same grievance as to the denial of personal hearing was reiterat ed
The High Court by its order of March 31 1975 refused to interfere with the order holding that section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was duly complied with
The High Court also held that the City Civil Court Judge was right in rejecting the submission since no oral hearing was ever claimed in the objection
Hence this appeal by special leaye which was ordered by this Court to be expedited
From a perusal of the judgment of the City Civil Court as well as that of the High Court we are of opinion that there was no proper appraisal of the real issue in the matter
It appears that both the City Civil Judge and the High Court were only concerned with whether the rules of natural justice were complied with in the matter of acquisi tion of the land in question
We think as will be shown below that the City Civil Court and the High Court are not right in their approach
We find that there is reference to section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in the order of the High Court and it is apparently assumed by the High Court that the said sec tion is applicable
All the same the High Court erroneously thinks that no personal hearing was necessary and the sec tion is fully completed with by mere submission
of the written objection particularly because no oral bearing was ever claimed
Mr Sanghi submits that so far as the appellants are concerned they did request for a personal hearing and that there is no denial by the respondents of their averment to that effect in their special leave petition
The City Civil Judge also noted in his judgment that some of the appel lants had in terms demanded a personal hearing in their objections memorandum
Be that as it may section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act does not rest on a person s demand for personal hearing
The matter may be different if a person whose property is acquired abandons the right to a personal hearing with which aspect we are not concerned in this appeal
Although the judgment of the High Court as stated earlier apparently rests on the asumption that section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is applicable Mr Shroff appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that that section is unavailable in the case of acquisition under the Bombay Act Mr Sanghi also fairly enough has not taken advantage of the assumption in the judgment and has submitted by drawing our attention to the various provisions of the Act that section 5A is clearly attracted in a matter of acquisition under the Bombay Act
75 We will now examine the rival contentions with regard to the applicability of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act
The title of Chapter XVI of the Act is Improvement Schemes and opens with section 270
There are various sub headings in this Chapter and we are concerned in this appeal with only a few sections under the sub title Provi sion of housing accommodation for the poorer classes This sub title in the Chapter opens with section 2841 2841 1 If the Corporation upon considera tion of a representation from the Commissioner or other information in its possession is satisfied that within any area in any part of the City it is expedient to provide housing accommodation for the poorer classes and that such accommodation can be conveniently provided without making an im provement scheme it shall cause such area to be defined on a plan and pass a resolution authorising the Commission and the Commissioner shall there upon be empowered to provide such accommodation        Section 284J provides that the Commissioner may for the purposes of the foregoing section on behalf of the Corporation a acquire any land including any buildings thereon as a site for the erection of buildings for the poorer classes
    Section 284K provides as follows  284K 1 Land for the purposes of the foregoing section may be acquired by the Commis sioner by agreement upon obtaining the requisite sanction under section 77 or he may with the sanction of the Standing Committee be authorised to acquire land for those purposes by means of a compulsory acquisition order made and submtited to the State Government and confirmed by it in accord ance with the provisions of Schedule C to this Act
      3 The provisions of Schedule B to this Act shall have effect with respect to the validity and date of operation of a compulsory acquisition order made under this section
      The next important section is section 284N which reads as under  284N The Land Acquisition Act 1894 in this and the next succeeding sections referred to as the Land Acquisition Act  shall to the extent set forth in Appendix I regulate and apply to the acquisition of land under this Chapter otherwise than by agreement and shall for that purpose be deemed to form part of this Chapter in the same manner as if enacted 76 in the body thereof subject to the provisions of this Chapter and to the provisions following namely       Thus section 284N referentially incorporates in the Bombay Act certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as detailed in Appendix I to the Bombay Act
Out of those provisions we are only concerned with Part 1I Acquisition of the Land Acquisition Act containing sections 4 to 17 including section 5A
According to Appendix I all the sections in Part Il of the Land Acquisition Act except subsection 1 of section 4 section 6 and sub section 2 of section 17 are bodily incorporated in the Bombay Act
Those provisions are deemed to be part and parcel of the Bombay Act
Hence section 5A is clearly a part of the Bombay Act in terms of Appendix I
It is true section 284 N provides that the incorporated provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are subject to the provisions of Chapter XVI and to those contained in section 284N itself
That is to say if there is any inconsistency between a provision in Chapter XVI of the Bombay Act or in section 284N itself and that in the Land Acquisition Act the former will prevail over the grafted provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act
This is however not to say that where section 5A is deemed to be part of the Bombay Act there is a further requirement to show in the Bombay Act an express provision for affording an opportunity of personal hearing
This is the error into which earlier the City Civil Judge fell
The heart of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is the hearing of objections and under sub section 2 of that section a personal hearing is mandato rily provided for
When therefore section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is applicable under Appendix I of the Bombay Act and there is nothing to show expressly or by necessary implication that the said section or any part of it is excluded under section 284N or under any other provi sion in Chapter XVI as a whole the right to personal hearing under the Bombay Act cannot vanish or be defeated
Mr Shroff fairly and in our opinion rightly concedes that there is no express ouster of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act under the provisions of Chapter XVI of the Bombay Act
He however submits that there is a special machinery under section 284K of the Act disclosed in Sched ule C and in Schedule B attached to the Bombay Act and since section 284N is subject to the provisions of Chapter XVI these Schedules form part of the Chapter
Assuming that Schedule C and Schedule B are part of Chapter XVI we are unable to read in the provisions contained in these two Schedules any exemption from the right to personal hearing mandatorily required under section 5A of the Land Acquisi tion Act
It is true that the mode of acquisition of land for housing accommodation is provided for under section 284K and that the order of compulsory acquisition made by the Commis sioner has to be confirmed by the State Government in ac cordance with the provisions of Schedule C to the Bombay Act
Broadly clause 2 of Schedule C provides that before submitting the order to the State Government the Commissioner 77 inter alia has to publish the order in the official gazette and in three or more newspapers
The Commissioner has also to serve on persons specified in clause 2b notices calling for objections etc
Clause 3 provides that upon compliance with the provisions of clauses 1 and 2 the Commissioner shall submit to the Standing Committee any objections re ceived under clause 2 and any suggestions he may wish to make in that respect
Under clause 4 the Standing Committee shall after consideration of any such objections and sugges tions make suCh modification in respect of such order as it may think fit and the Commissioner shall thereafter submit the order as modified by the Standing Committee to the State Government for confirmation
It is manifest that the proce dure under the scheme of Schedule C will be breached if the Commissioner does not afford a personal hearing to the objectors even in order to be able to fortify his sugges tions which he has to submit to the Standing Committee along with the objections
Since the Standing Committee is enti tled to have his properly considered suggestions which may enable it even to modify the order of acquisition it is necessary that the Commissioner gives a personal hearing to the objectors before he is able to make his suggestions worthy in the context of the objections lodged
Otherwise it will be only an empty formality and the suggestions will be devoid of much of practical utility to the Committee
Schedule C therefore does not even by necessary implica tion rule out a right to personal hearing
Clause 2 of Schedule B provides for an appeal to a Judge of the City Civil Court in
Ahmedabad and elsewhere to a Judge of the District Court whose decision shall be final
Mr Shroff submits that provision for an appeal against the acquisition order after confirmation by  the State Govern ment provides for appropriate remedy before a judicial Tribunal
This also says Mr Shroff goes to indicate by necessary implication that personal hearing required under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is dispensed with and the remedy provided for under the provisions of the Bombay Act read with the two Schedules is exhaustive and necessari ly excludes the application of section 5A of the Land Acqui sition Act and with it the right of personal hearing provid ed thereunder
We should make it clear that provision for appeal is not a complete substitute for a personal hearing which is pro vided for under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act
This will be evident from a perusal of clause 3 of Schedule B itself
The character of the appeal contemplated under clause 3ii of Schedule B is only with regard to the examination of the following aspects  1  whether the order or approval of the plan is within the powers of the Bombay Act and 2 whether the interests of the appellant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act not having been complied with
The appeal is confined under clause 3 of Schedule B to the examination of only the twin aspects referred to above
There is no provision for entertainment of any other rele vant objection to the acquisition of 78 land
For example a person whose land is acquired may object to the suitability of the land for the particular purpose acquired
He may again show that he will be at an equal disadvantage if his land and house have to be acquired in order to provide accommodation for the poorer people as he himself belongs to the same class of the indigent
He may further show that tbere is a good alternative land available and can be acquired without causing inconvenience to the occupants of the houses whose lands and houses are sought to be acquired
There may be other relevant objections which a person may be entitled to take before the Commis sioner when the whole matter is at large
The Commissioner will be in a better position to examine those objections and consider theirweight from all aspects and may even visit the locality before submitting his report to the Standing Committee with his suggestions
For this purpose also a personal hearing is necessary
The appeal court under the Schedule B to the Bombay Act on the other hand is not required under clause 3 to entertain all kinds of objections and it may even refuse to consider the objections mentioned earlier in view of the truncated scope of the hearing under clause 3ii as noted above
We are therefore unable to accept the submission that the appeal provided for under Schedule B is a complete substitute for a right to personal hearing and as such by necessary implication ousts the applicability of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act
Mr Shroff further submits that under the Appendix I inter alia section 174 of the Land Acquisition Act is made applicale in an acquisition proceeding under the Bombay Act
It is therefore submitted that under section 284N sub section 4 any acquisition under the Bombay Act is treated as an acquisition under section 17  1  of the Land Acquisition Act and since section 174 of the Land Acquisi tion Act is also brought in under the said Appendix section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act by necessary implication should be held as excluded from the purview of the Bombay Act
We are unable to accept this submission
Even under section 174 of the Land Acquisition Act the appropriate Government has to direct in a case of urgency that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply
There is no automatic exclusion of section 5A even under the Land Acqui sition Act
That being the position there is no substance in the contention that because of subsection 4 of section 284N section 5A should be held inapplicable in the case of an acquisition proceeding under the Bombay Act
We are clearly
of opinion that section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is applicable in the matter of acquisition of land in this case and since no personal hearing had been given to the appellants by the Commissioner with regard to their written objections the order of acquisition and the resultant confirmation order of the State Government with respect to the land of the appellants are invalid under the law and the same are quashed
It should be pointed out it is not a case of failure of the rules of natural justice as such as appeared to be the only concern of the High Court and also of the City Civil Court
It is a case of absolute non compliance with a mandatory provision under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act which is clearly applicable in the matter of acquisition under the Bombay Act
79 We should also point out that the acquisition order must be an order valid under the law and the question of appeal arises only after confirmation of the order by the State Government
If the order is at inception invalid its invalidity cannot be cured by its approval of the Standing Committee or by its confirmation of the State Government
Besides hearing of objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act to be given by the Commissioner under the Bombay Act cannot be replaced by a kind of appeal hear ing by the City Civil Judge
The Bombay Act having assigned the duty of hearing objections to the Commissioner he alone can hear them and not the City Civil Judge even assuming that all objections could be entertained by him in appeal
See Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs Lt Governor of Delhi  Ors1
Beneficial schemes under welfare legislation have to be executed in accordance with law which creates the schemes
The end does not always justify the means and it is no answer that the object of the scheme is such that it justi fies the implementer of the law to be absolutely oblivious of the manner of enforcement even though the manner is an integral part of the scheme imposing under the law re strictions on the rights of individuals
Beneficial laws have to be simple and self contained
To introduce provi sions of another Act referentially in vital matters creates avoidable difficulties and litigation highlighted by the case in hand
It is refreshing that this Court disposed of this matter within about four months of granting of special leave
In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside and with it the appellate order of the City Civil Judge also falls
The Commissioner shall give a personal hearing to the appellants as required under sub section 2 of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law
In the circumstances of the case we will however make no order as to costs in this appeal
VPS Appeal al lowed
SCR 597


Summary:
Section 284 1 of Chapter VI of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 as applied in Gujarat provides that if the Corporation is satisfied that within any area in any part of a city under the Act it is expedient to provide housing accommodation for the poorer classes it shall cause such area to be defined on a plan and pass a resolution authorising the Commissioner and the Commissioner shall thereupon be empowered to provide such accommodation
Section 284Ja provides that the Commissioner may for such purposes acquire any land including any buildings thereon
Section 284K 1  provides that the Commissioner may with the sanction of the Standing Committee be authorised to acquire the land by means of a compulsory acquisition order made and submitted to the State Government and confirmed by it in accordance with the provisions of Schedule C to the Act and section 284K3 provides that the provisions of Schedule B to the Act shall have effect with respect to the validity and date of operation of the compulsory acquisition order
Clause 2 Schedule C provides that before submitting the order to the State Government the Commissioner has to pub lish the order in the Official Gazette and in three or more newspapers
The Commissioner has also to serve on persons specified in el
2b notices calling for objections etc
Clause 3 provides that upon compliance with the provisions of cls
1 and 2 the Commissioner shall submit to the Stand ing Committee any objections received under el 2 and any suggestions he may wish to make in that respect
Under cl 4 the Standing Committee shall after consideration of any such objections and suggestions make such modification in respect of such order as it may think fit and the Commis sioner shall thereafter submit the order as modified by the Standing Committee to the State Government for confirma tion
Clause 2 of Schedule B provides for an appeal to a Judge of the City Civil Court in Ahmedabad and elsewhere to a Judge of the District Court against the order of acquisi tion confirmed by the State Government
Section 284N refer entially incorporates in the Bombay Act certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as detailed in Appendix I to the Bombay Act
Accordingly all the sections in Part H of the Land Acquisition Act except section 41 section 6 and section 172 are bodily incorporated in the Bombay Act
Hence section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act which provides for personal hearing of the objectors to an acquisition forms part of the Bombay Act
In pursuance of the authority of the Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad the Commissioner passed an order of com pulsory acquisition under s284J published it in the Offi cial Gazette and in local newspapers and served individual notices on the concerned parties
The appellants who objected to the acquisition were however not given any personal hearing by the Commissioner inspite of a request by them
The Commissioner submitted the objections with his suggestions to the Standing Committee and the Committee approved the order of compulsory acquisition
The State Government thereafter confirmed the order
The appellants preferred an appeal to the City Civil Court on the basis inter alia of the denial of personal hearing to them but the Court held that the principles of natural justice were satisfied and the High Court confirmed the order of the City Civil Court
Allowing the appeal to this Court 72 HELD Section 5A Land Acquisition Act is applicable in the present case
It is not a case of failure of the rules of natural justice but one of noncompliance with the manda tory provision in section 5A and since no personal hearing had been given to the appellants by the Commisisoner the order of acquisition and the confirmation by the State Government are invalid
78 G H 1 The incorporated provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are subject to the provisions of Chap
XVI of the Bombay Act that is if there is any inconsistency between a provi sion in Chap
XVI of the Bombay Act and that of the Land Acquisition Act the former will prevail
But there is no express provision of the Chapter ousting the application of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act
76 D E 2 Schedule C does not even by necessary implication rule out the right to personal hearing
On the other hand since the Standing Committee is entitled to have the Commis sioner s properly considered suggestions which may enable it even to modify the order of acquisition it is necessary that the Commissioner gives a personal hearing to the objec tors before he makes his suggestions worthy in the context of the objections lodged for otherwise his
suggestions will be devoid of much practical utility to Committee
77 C D 3 The appeal provided for under Schedule B is not a substitute for the right to personal hearing
The applica bility of section 5A is therefore not impliedly ousted by the provision for appeal
78 D The appeal contemplated under Schedule B is only with regard to the examination of two aspects namely whether the order or approval of the plan is within the powers of the Bombay Act and whether the interests of the appellant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of the Bombay Act not having been complied with
But there may be other relevant objections which a person may be entitled to take before the Commissioner when the whole matter is at large such as that the land is not suitable for the par ticular purpose that he himself belongs to a poor class and would suffer disadvantage by the acquisition or that there is a good alternative land available which can be acquired without causing inconvenience to the occupants of land sought to be acquired
Hence a personal hearing is neces sary
The appellate court is not required to entertain such objections in view of its truncated scope and even assum ing that all such objections could be entertained by it the duty of hearing objections under the Bombay Act is of the Commissioner and he alone can hear them and not a Judge of the Civil Court
The acquisition order must be a valid order and the question of appeal arises only after confir mation of such an order by the State Government
77 G H 78 A D Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs Lt Governor of Delhi  referred to
4 Merely because under section 284N4 of the Bombay Act the acquisition is treated to be under section 171 Land Acqui sition Act and since section 174 is also applicable it could not be said that section 5A is excluded by necessary implication because even under section 174 of the Land Acquisition Act the appropriate Government has to direct in a case of urgency that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply
There is no automatic exclusion of the section even under the Land Acquisition Act
78 E F 5 If the order of acquisition is at inception in valid its invalidity cannot be cured by its approval by the Standing Committee or by its confirmation by the State Government
79 A 6 The end does not always justify the means and even beneficial schemes under welfare legislation have to be executed in accordance with the appropriate law
It is no answer that the object of the scheme is such that it justi fies the implementer of the law to be absolutely oblivious of the manner of enforcement even though the manner is an integral part of the scheme imposing under law restric tions on the rights of individuals
79 C Beneficial laws have to be simple and self contained
The introduction of provisions of another Act referentially in vital matters creates avoidable difficulties and Irrigation
79 D