Civil Appeal No 675 of 1968
From the judgment and order dated the 19th January 1967 of the Bombay High Court in SCA No 16 of 1967
section J Deshpande and A G Ratnaparkhi for the appellant
M C Bhandare and M N Shroff for respondent nos
1 2 and 4 D V Patel K Laxmanrao and section Gopalakrishnan for respondent No 3 876 The Jugement of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J Brevity will do no inequity in this appeal where three points were urged but only one survives for serious scanning
The subject matter is the validity of land acquisition proceedings whereby a Municipality compulsorily purchased the appellant s land for the stated public purpose of running a country fair or market mondha under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act for short the Act which is closely similar to the Land Acquisition Act 1923 Central Act
The first charge is that the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition in limine
Seven years after the 1968 event we cannot consider sending back the case even if there be justice in the submission
We have therefore heard counsel Shri Deshpande on his substantive grievances
The second contention is that there is no public purpose  to support the acquisition which is allegedly ultra a vires the Municipality s powers
We disagree
Providing a village market is an obvious public purpose and a municipal facility
The last plea which has been pressed strenuously is that the acquisition exercise is bad being mala fide an uphill task to make out against a public body
Was this colourable exercise of power  Striking down any act for mala fide exercise of power is a judicial reserve power exercised lethally but rarely
The charge of mala fides against public bodies and authorities is more easily made than made out
It is the last refuge of a losing litigant
Even so we will examine the merits of the contention here from the point of view of the serious factors placed for our consideration
Was this acquisition done colore officii  The circumstances relied on may be examined from this standpoint
Section 53 of the Act provides for declaration of the public purpose like section 63 of the Central Act
This declaration was made in 1960 and covered at least 28 acres of land belonging to the appellant
His counsel contends that there in no public purpose mentioned in the notification because what is stated is government purpose 
There is no force in this terminological deviation
The purpose has been set down as for a mondha  or country fair  which is obviously a public purpose
So counsel shifted to another shade of the same argument and state that mondha  is not a word known to law and has not been defined anywhere and so such a purpose cannot be taken cognizance of by the law
We cannot agree to the linguistic game masquerading as a legal point
It is plain that a mondha  is a country fair or village market Market  is defined in section 220 of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act in wide terms and section 72 of the said Act enumerates the purposes for which property may be vested in a municipality
This includes markets 
It inexorably follows from a joint reading of sections 220 and 72a that the purpose of providing a market for the townsfolk falls within the powers of a municipality
Failing here counsel finally stressed that in any case no market for a small municipal town requires 28 acres of land especially because the Master Plan prepared for the Municipality had allotted 877 only 15 acres for this purpose
lt is not for the Court to investigate into the area necessary for running a market
Moreover there is no mala fides emerging from this circumstance
What has to be established is mala fide exercise of power by the State Government the acquiring authority although the beneficiary of the acquisition is eventually the Municipality
There is no scintilla of evidence suggestive of malus animus in Government
At this state Shri Deshpande complained that actually the Municipal Committee had sold away the excess land marking them out into separate plots for a housing colony apart from the fact that a housing colony is a public necessity once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition
There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the section 53 declaration
There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed without costs
PBR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Certain lands belonging to the appellants were compulsorily acquired under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act for running a country fair or market mondha
After the acquisition the municipality parcelled out the excess land and sold it for a housing colony
The High Court dismissed the appellants  writ petition in limine
On appeal to this Court it was contended that the acquisition was not for a public purpose and that it was mala fide
Dismissing the appeal  HELD 1a Providing a village market is an obvious public purpose
876C D b A mondha is a country fair or village market
Market is defined in section 220 of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act in wide terms and section 72 of the said Act enumerates the purposes for which property may be vested in a municipality
This includes markets
It inexoorably follows from a joint reading of Ss 220 and 72a of the District Municipalities Act that the purpose of providing a market for the townsfolk falls within the powers of the municipality
876G H 2a Striking down any Act for mala fide exercise of power is a judicial resered power exercised lethally but rarely
The charge of mala fides against public bodies and authorities is more easily made than made out
It is the last refuge of a losing litigant
876D b What has to be established is mala fide exercise of power by the State Government although the beneficiary is the municipality
There is no evidence of malus animus in Government
877B c Apart from the fact that a housing colony is a public necessity once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the municipality how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition
There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the declaration
877C