1970 JTR(SC) 3
1971 3 SCC 821 ; 1970 SCD 298 ; 1970 1 SCWR 183
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C.Shah : K.S.Hegde
Municipal Corporation Of The City Of Ahmedabad
Versus
Chandulal Shamaldas Patel
Case No. : 1716 of 1967
Date of Decision : 1/8/70
A party intended to use land acquired by the government lacks the standing to appeal a court order quashing the acquisition notifications if they are not an aggrieved party and the notifications were issued by the state government.
Act
Referred
:LAND ACQUISITION ACT
: S.4
(A) Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4 and 6 - Notification for acquisition of land - Maintainability of appeal - Where land is notified for acquisition by the government for the use of a local body, and the High Court quashes such notifications, the local body cannot maintain an appeal if no relief was claimed against it and it has no direct interest in the validity of the notifications issued by the government. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Appeal - Locus standi - To file an appeal, the party must be aggrieved by the order - Mere intended use of the acquired property does not confer a legal interest to challenge the validity of the acquisition notifications issued by the state government. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Certain lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of school and neighbourhood work. The notifications were challenged in the High Court and subsequently quashed. A local body, which was impleaded as a respondent but against whom no relief was claimed, filed an appeal against the order.
Findings of Court:
The local body was not an aggrieved party as the notifications were issued by the government. The fact that the property was to be used by the local body after acquisition did not confer an interest sufficient to sustain an appeal against the order quashing the government's notifications.
Issues: Whether a local body, intended to use land acquired by the government, has the standing to appeal a court order quashing the acquisition notifications.
Ratio Decidendi: A party must be "aggrieved" to maintain an appeal. Since the notifications were issued by the government and the local body had no legal interest in the validity of those notifications, it lacked the locus standi to appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
(B) Appeal - Locus standi - To file an appeal, the party must be aggrieved by the order - Mere intended use of the acquired property does not confer a legal interest to challenge the validity of the acquisition notifications issued by the state government. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Certain lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of school and neighbourhood work. The notifications were challenged in the High Court and subsequently quashed. A local body, which was impleaded as a respondent but against whom no relief was claimed, filed an appeal against the order.
Findings of Court:
The local body was not an aggrieved party as the notifications were issued by the government. The fact that the property was to be used by the local body after acquisition did not confer an interest sufficient to sustain an appeal against the order quashing the government's notifications.
Issues: Whether a local body, intended to use land acquired by the government, has the standing to appeal a court order quashing the acquisition notifications.
Ratio Decidendi: A party must be "aggrieved" to maintain an appeal. Since the notifications were issued by the government and the local body had no legal interest in the validity of those notifications, it lacked the locus standi to appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
J.C. SHAH, J.
(1) CERTAIN lands belonging to the first respondent were notified for acquisition under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the government of Bombay by a notification, dated 19/02/1959. The area in which the land is situate having thereafter been allotted to the State of Gujarat on the bifurcation of the State of Bombay under the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 a Divisional Commissioner of the State of Gujarat issued anotification under S. 6/05/1961. Both the notifications mentioned the purpose for acquisition as "for School and neighbourhood work". The notifications were challenged by the first respondent in a petition filed by him in the High court of Gujarat on various grounds which it is not necessary to set out. The petition was granted. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad which was the fourth respondent in the petition has appealed to this court. A preliminary objection is raised against the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Corporation. It is urged that the Corporation is not aggrieved by the order. In our judgment the contention must be upheld.
(2) THE Municipal Corporation was impleaded as the fourth respondent before the High court but no relief was claimed against the Municipal Corporation. The property, it is true, was notified for acquisition by the State government for the use of the Municipal Corporation after it was acquired by the government, but that, in our judgment, did not confer any interest in the Municipal Corporation so as to enable it to file an appeal against the order of the High court allowing the petition. Substantially the grounds on which the petition was filed were that the notifications were invalid on account of diverse reasons. Some of these reasons have been upheld and some have not been upheld but all those grounds related to the validity of the Notifications issued by the government of Bombay and the government of Gujarat. Not even an order of costs has been passed against the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad. We fail to see what interest the Municipal Corporation has which would sustain an appeal by it against the order of the High court allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent.
(3) THE appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs.