Judgment Case ID: 3526

Judgment:
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). G.L. Sanghi	 K.J. John	 S.R. Kureshi and D. N	 Mishra	 for the appellants. I. N. Shroff and H.S. Parihar	 for Respondent No. 1. M.N. 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 33	357 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 10/11	 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 2(b) 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 3(ii) 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 their.weight 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 3(ii) 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 17(4) 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 17(4) 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 17(4) 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 & Ors.(1)]. 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. V.P.S. Appeal al lowed. S.C.R. 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 284J(a) 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 284K(3) 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. 2(b) 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 4(1)	 section 6 and section 17(2) 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 s.284J. 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 284N(4) of the Bombay Act	 the acquisition is treated to be under section 17(1)	 Land Acqui sition Act	 and since section 17(4) is also applicable it could not be said that section 5A is excluded by necessary implication; because	 even under section 17(4) 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]