http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: MESSRS NOORULLA GHAZANFARULLA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ALIGARH, ALIGARH

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/02/1995

BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1058            1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 667  JT 1995 (2)   249        1995 SCALE  (1)643

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.This  appeal  by  special leave is  directed  against  the judgment  and  order dated 26.4.1982 of the  High  Court  of Allahabad  by which Civil Misc.  Writ Petition No. 12220  of 1975  filed by the petitioner therein, the  appellant  here, was dismissed. 2.The  appellant was a registered partnership firm.  On  10. 10.  193  5 the Municipal Board of  Aligarh,  respondent-  1 granted  to  the appellant, acting in  accordance  with  the provisions  of  Section 224 and Section 224-A  of  the  U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - "the Act", ’Aligarh Water  Supply Licence,  1935’ -- "the Licence" for providing water  supply to certain areas of Aligarh by taking over the then existing water  works  of respondents, subject to  the  condition  of paying  to  respondent-1 annual fee of  Rs.10,000/-  and  of fulfilling other conditions of the Licence.  Condition 7  of those  conditions  which related to the period  of  licence, read thus               "7.  This licence shall remain in force for  a               period of 50 years from its commencement.   On               the  expiry of the saidperiod of 50 years  the               board  may  at its option  either  renew  this               licence for another period of 50 years and  on               the same terms and conditions, or if the board               and the licensees agree, for a different  term               and on different conditions, or may take  over               the  whole water works on payment of the  fair               value  of  the  properties  belonging  to  the               Licensees to be determined in the manner  laid               down in section 224-C of the United  Provinces               Municipalities Act." 3.   But, the appellant since found it difficult to  provide water  supply  for areas of Aligarh as was  required  of  it under  the Licence even during the basic period of 50  years of  the  Licence, it requested respondent-1  to  revoke  the Licence  by  having recourse to Section 224-B(2)(a)  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Act, so as to enable the latter to purchase the water  works as  provided for under the succeeding Section 224-C  of  the Act. 4.   The  Administrator  of respondent1, responding  to  the said  request  of the appellant made an order  on  1.4.1975, which  indicated that respondent-1 had taken a  decision  to revoke  the  Licence of the appellant according  to  Section 224B(2)(a)  of  the Act after it had obtained  the  previous sanction  of  the State Government  (respondent-2),  as  per wireless message dated 30.3.1975 received by it.  The  mate- rial part of that order read thus:               "(1)  The licence dated 10.10.1935 granted  to               M/s.  Noorullah               Allahabad  to  supply  water  within   Aligarh               Municipal  limits is revoked with effect  from               1st  April 1975 and the of the  Aligarh  Water               works will be taken over by Aligarh  Municipal               Board with effect from the same date.                (2)  All  property Tubewells,  pumping  sets,               Machinery,  storage tanks, pipe  lines  mains,               equipments   stores   and   other    articles,               accessories  & fittings Hydrants &  Standposts               and  office and account belonging  to  Aligarh               Water  Works shall vest in  Aligarh  Municipal               Board  and  an powers and liabilities  of  the               licencee  under  the license to  supply  water               shall               252               absolutely  cease  and determine  with  effect               from 1st April, 1975.               (3)   The valuation of the property  belonging               to  the  licensee shall be determined  by  the               State Govt. in accordance with the  provisions               of the Municipalities Act, 1916. 5.   Appellant  which was served with the said order on  the same  date  on which it was made, promptly  gave  its  reply therefor,  again on the very same date.  How, the  appellant had understood the said order and how it treated that  order was made known to the Administrator by stating in its  reply thus:               "Although,  the  order  sent  by  you  is  not               actually  a  notice,  but as  the  order  also               states  clearly that the revocation will  take               effect from 1.4.75 presume the order is  meant               by  you to serve the purpose of the notice  as               required  under  section 224C(a) of  the  U.P.               Municipalities  Act and take it as  such.   We               further presum that this order is meant by you               also  to  serve  the  purpose  of  the  notice               required  to be served on the Licensees  under               sub-  section  (b) of Section  224C  requiring               Licensees to sell their assets               water  supply as essential necessity,  in  the               city and in order to avoid any hardship to the               citizens,  we  have decided to hand  over  the               undertaking   under   protest   and    without               prejudice to our rights under section 224C  of               U.P. Municipalities Act ............               With the take-over of the water works all  our               responsibilities  and  liabilities  under  the               Licence  shall cease except for our rights  to               receive full compensation and  our dues to  be               realised by the Municipal Board  .......               Please  acknowledge  and kg us have  an  early               reply and oblige."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Early reply, as requested for as above by the appellant does not  appear  to  have been given  by  the  Administrator  of respondent1, in that, no information in that regard was made available even though the same was required to be  furnished by an order made by us on 14.1.1994. 6.       However,  before  the sale  of  properties  of  the appellant  in the water works envisaged under Section  224-C of  the Act which was adverted to in the  appellant’s  reply given  in  response  to  the  Administrator’s  order   dated 1.4.1975, that on 13.6.1975 Ordinance No. 16 of 1975 came to be issued by respondent-2 substituting new section 224-B and new section 224-C for existed sections 224-B and 224C of the Act.   The said Ordinance declared  that new  section  224-C shall be deemed to have come into force on 1. 1. 1975  while the  other  new sections shall be deemed to have  come  into force  on  the  date of Ordinance (ibid  section  2  of  the Ordinance). 7.   Later, that on 8.9.1975 Act No. 45 of 1975, enacted  by the  State  Legislative of respondent-2, replaced  the  said Ordinance, with exactly the same text. 8.     In  the  said  situation,  that  on  20.10.1975,  the appellant filed Writ Petition, C.M. Writ No. 12220/75  under Article  226  of the Constitution before the High  Court  of Judicature  at  Allahabad,  seeking  from  the  High   Court issuance  of  directions to respondents 1 to 3 to  pay  fair market value of the properties of the appellant in the water works the licence of which had been revoked by respondent-1 253 on 1.4.1975, without invoking the provisions of the  amended new  Section 224-C of the Act to pay the amount to  be  com- puted  thereunder,  as the value of such  properties.   But, that writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. 9.   The said dismissal of the writ petition by   the   High Court, made the appellant     question  the  correctness  of the  order  of  such dismissal in this  Court  by  filing  a Special Leave to appeal against it.  At the hearing of  that Special Leave Petition, since it was contended that the High Court  did not consider the challenge to the  constitutional validity  of  Act 45 of 1975 even though the same  had  been raised  before it, Court granted leave sought  for  therein, accepted  the  contention  and  disposed  of  Civil   Appeal No.352/81  arising out of it by setting aside the  order  of the  High Court under appeal and sending the matter  to  the High Court for its decision on all questions arising  before it including the constitutional validity of Act 45 of  1975, by rehearing the writ petition. 10.The  High  Court which reheard the writ petition  as  had been ordered by this Court again dismissed the writ petition by  its judgment dated 26.4.1982. That judgment  shows  that the  submissions  made on behalf of the  petitioner  therein (appellant here) were confined to constitutional validity of new Section 224-C of the Act which was substituted by Act 45 of 1975 for old Section 224-C of the Act.  However, the High Court  as is seen from the judgment, although  examined  the challenge  directed against the constitutional  validity  of new  Section 224-C as that which was violative  of  Articles 19(1)(f)  and  31  of the Constitution of  India,  found  no substance  in  the challenge.  Consequently, the  said  writ petition  was  dismissed by the judgment of the  High  Court dated  26.4.1982.  The present appeal by  special  leave  is filed by the petitioner therein-the appellant, against  that judgment, as stated at the outset. 11.One important event, occurring between the date of filing of the appeal and its final hearing, the notice of which  is required  to be taken before adverting to the  arguments  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

the appeal and dealing with them, is of the determination of the amount payable by respondent- 1 to the appellant for its properties  of Aligarh Water Works according to new  Section 224-C  of the Act as Rs.5,39,755/- and the payment  of  that amount by respondent-1 to the appellant on 1.2.1989. 12.Contentions  raised  in support of this  appeal  by  Shri Harish  N. Salve, the learned counsel for the appellant,  in his oral arguments and reiterated in his written submissions could,  for  purposes  of  easy  understanding  and   proper consideration, be formulated thus 1.   When, by his Order dated 1.4.1975the Administrator   of respondent  revoked  the appellant’s licence in  respect  of Aligarh Water Works with effect from 1.4.1975 by stating  in that  order,  that all property belonging to  Aligarh  Water Works  shall vest in Aligarh Municipal Board  (respondent-1) and  all  powers  and  liabilities  of  the  licensee   (the appellant)  under  the  licence to supply  water  shall  ab- solutely  cease and determine with effect from 1.4.1975  and that  the  value of the property belonging to  the  licensee shall  be determined by the State Government  in  accordance with the provisions of the Municipalities Act 1916, did such property 254 of the appellant in Aligarh Water Works vest in respondent-1 on  1.4.1975  making  it  liable to pay  its  value  to  the appellant and what remained with the appellant from 1.4.1975 was not its property in water works but merely   the   money value or compensation    payable  by  respondent-1  to   the appellant for such property, i.e., a chosein-action. 2.   When,   by  Act  45  of  1975  enacted  by  the   State Legislature  of respondent-2, property of the  appellant  in the  Aligarh  Water  Works was  acquired  for  respondent-1, making it liable to pay there . for an amount computed under its provisions, was the property so acquired, a mere  chose- in   action  so as to make Act 45 of  1975  constitutionally invalid  by  it in that, acquisition of money  or  chose-in- action  offended  Article  19(1)(f) and Article  31  of  the Constitution. 3.   Even  if, it is assumed that new section 224-C  of  the Act,  which is substituted for the old Section 224-C of  the Act  by  Act 45 of 1975 is constitutionally valid  and  that Rs.5,39,755/-  computed  thereunder is  the  correct  amount payable  by respondent-1 to the appellant for the  value  of the property of the appellant in Aligarh Water Works  vested in  it  under the new Section, and the same is paid  to  the appellant on 1.2.1989, is respondent-1 justified in  denying to  the appellant the interest payable, on that amount  from 1.4.1975  -  the  deemed date of vesting  of  properties  in respondent-1 till 1.2.1989   the date on which  respondent-1 paid  that  amount to the appellant, particularly  when  the proviso  to sub-section (2) of new Section 224C of  the  Act required payment of such interest? 4.   When  a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, ordered by this Court  on 3.12-1990  to be, paid by respondent-1 to the appellant  out of  the  total  interest  payable to it  on  the  amount  of compensation,   is  that  sum  of  interest   deposited   by respondent-1 with the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court, not liable to be paid to the appellant. 13.  As  the  above  contentions raised in  support  of  the appeal  were  refuted  by  learned  Counsel  appearing   for respondents,  it would be convenient to consider  the  merit -of each of the said contentions seriatim. Contention-1 14.  Since this contention is founded on a statement made by the  Administrator  of  respondent-  1,  in  his  Order   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

revocation of the licence of Aligarh Water Works held by the appellant  which creates an impression that the property  of the appellant in Aligarh Water Works was ordered to vest  in respondent-  1 with effect from 1.4.1975, the question  that calls  for our consideration, to begin with, is whether  the provision in Section 224-C of the Act, as it stood before it was substituted by Act 45 of 1975, with a new Section 224-C, empowered  the Board (respondent-1) to order vesting of  the property of the licensee (the appellant) in the Water  Works from a date when such licensee’s licence in respect of water supply  through  such  Water  Works,  could  be  revoked  in exercise of the power conferred under that provision and  if that  provision did not empower the Board,  respondent-1  to order  the vesting of the property of the appellant  in  the Water Works in itself, from the time it revoked its  licence given  in respect of such water works, whether  a  statement made by the Administrator of respondent-1 in 255 his order of revocation that from the date  of purchase due of    revocation   of   licence   of   the   water    works, the  property  of  the licensee,  the  appellant  vested  in respondent-1, could have had the legal effect of vesting  of such property in respondent- 1. 15.  Section  224-C  of  the Act, as  it  stood  before  its substitution  by  Act 45 of 1975 with a  new  Section,  read thus:               224-C.   Where  the licence of a  licensee  is               revoked  under  the  preceding  section,   the               following provisions shall have effect, namely               (a)   The  board shall serve a notice  of  the               revocation upon the licensee and shall in  the               notice  fix  a date on  which  the  revocation               shall take effect; and on and with effect from               such  date all the powers and  liabilities  of               the   licensee   under   the   licence   shall               absolutely cease and determine;               (b)   where  a notice of the revocation  of  a               licence  has been served on the  licensee  the               board  may,  within  three  months  after  the               service  of such notice and with  the  written               consent of the Local Government, by notice  in               writing  require  the licensee  to  sell,  and               thereupon  the  licensee shall  sell,  to  the               board  the whole Of the water- works  at  such               value as shall be mutually agreed upon, or  in               default  of  such agreement at such  value  as               shall  be determined by a valuer appointed  by               the’  board  and the licensee and in  case  of               their  disagreement by the  Local  Governments               the licensee shall however be responsible  for               the  establishment  employed by  him  for  the               undertaking and for any compensation or  other               payments it may be necessary to incur on their               behalf-               Provided  that the value of  such  water-works               shall be deemed to be their fair market  value               at the time of purchase due regard  being  had               to the nature and condition for the time being               of such waterworks and to the state of repairs               thereof,  and to the circumstances  that  they                             are  in  such  a position as to  be  ready  fo r               immediate working, and to the stability of the               same  for the purpose of the  undertaking  but               without     any   addition   in   respect   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

             compulsory  purchase or of goodwill or of  any               profits which may or might have been made from               the    undertaking,   or   of   any    similar               consideration;               (c)   where  any part of the  water-works  was               transferred by the board to the licensee under               section  224(d), the board may, by  notice  in               writing  require the licensee  to  re-transfer               the same to the board on payment by the  board               of  any sum by which the market value of  such               part of the water-works may have been enhanced               by  reason  of  any  arrangement  made-by  the               licensee,  such  sum to be determined  in  the               manner provided in clause (d) of this section.               (d)......................... 16.  As  seen from the Preamble of the above Section  224-C, where the licence is revoked under the preceding section  by the  Board (Section 224-B), the provisions to follow,  i.e., clauses  (a) to (d), shall have effect.  First part  of  the provision  in  clause  (a) requires  service  of  notice  of revocation upon the licensee fixing a date thereunder as  to the  date on which revocation shall take effect,  while  its second part declares that on and with effect from such  date of  revocation, the powers and liabilities of  the  licensee under  the  licence shall absolutely  cease  and  determine, First part of clause (b) of the provision which empowers the Board  by notice of revocation served upon the  licensee  to require -the 256 licensee to sell the water-works to the Board, by its second part requires the licence to sell such water works only  for such  value  as shall be mutually agreed  upon  between  the licensee and the Board and if not, for the value  determined by the valuer to be appointed by both of them.  The  proviso to the said provision then creates a legal fiction, when  it declares  that  the value of the water works  for  which  it would be sold shall be deemed to be fair market value on the date of its purchase by the Board. 17.  Therefore, the provision in clause (a)  above makes  it clear  that  revocation of licence relating to  water  works takes  effect  from the date fixed for the  purpose  by  the Board  in  the  notice  or  order  putting  an  end  to  the licensee’s  rights  and duties under the licence  from  that date.  Further, the provision in clause (b) and its proviso, makes it abundantly clear that water works becomes the water works of the Board only when the value payable by the  Board to  the  licensee  of  such water  works  is  determined  as provided  in the provision and the water works  is  actually sold by the licensee to the Board pursuant to its  (Board’s) notice issued to licensee to sell and not before. 18.  Thus, the said provisions in Section    224-C  of   the Act as they stood before they were   substituted   by    new Section  under  Act 45 of 1975, if had  only  empowered  the Board  (respondent-1) to revoke the licence of the  licensee (the  appellant) of water works from a date to be  specified by  it and direct the licensee (the appellant) to  sell  the water  works (Aligarh Water Works) after the value  of  such water works was determined either by mutual agreement or  by the  valuer to be appointed by both, there is no escape  for us except holding that the Board had no power to appropriate such water works to itself before the taking of such sale by unilaterally stating that the properties of water works  had vested  in  it on the date of revocation.   Accordingly,  we hold  that the Board, respondent-1 was not  empowered  under section  224-C of the Act, as it stood before its  amendment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

by Act 45 of 1975, to get the ownership of the Aligarh Water Works  or  property therein transferred to itself  from  the appellant from the date specified for revocation of  licence of the appellant in respect of Aligarh Water Works, nor  the statement  made by the Administrator of respondent-1 in  his Order  (Notice)  of  revocation  to  the  effect  that   the properties of the water works had been vested in respondent- 1  from the date of revocation of licence,  i.e.,  1.4.1975, did bring about that result. 19.Besides, when the provisions in Section 224-C of the Act, as  they  stood before they were amended by a  new  Section, substituted by Act 45 of 1975 empowered the Board to  obtain sale  of water works from the licensee only after the  price or value of such water works had been agreed upon or  fixed, transfer of ownership of water works, i.e., tangible  immov- able  property in exchange for a price from the licensee  to the Board could not have occurred before the taking place of such  sale,  inasmuch as transfer of ownership  of  tangible immovable  property of the value of one hundred  rupees  and upwards  could  take place only by sale made  under  a  reg- istered  instrument  as  required under Section  54  of  the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.  Therefore, unless a statute itself  provides  for  vesting  and  transfer  of  immovable property from one person to another 257 by  acquisition  or the like, the question  of  transfer  of ownership  of property in the water works from the  licensee (the  appellant) to the Board (respondent-1) could not  have taken  place,  even if such water works  had  been  forcibly taken over by respondent-1 or the possession of the same had been  given to the Board (respondent-1), voluntarily by  the licensee, the appellant. 20. Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- "the  LA Act",  in  fact,  illustrate  the  legal  position  for  the possession  of the land sought to be acquired under  the  LA Act whether its possession is voluntarily handed over to the Government  by its owner or its possession is taken over  by the  Government as provided for under the said Act,  vesting of  such land in the Government takes place because  of  the provisions  in Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, which  declare that  the land shall vest absolutely in the Government  free from  all encumbrances at a stated point of time.  In  other words,  but,  for  statutory vesting of  land  according  to Sections  16 and 17 of the LA Act, the vesting of such  land in  the Government cannot take place, even if possession  of it is taken by the Government in one way or the other. 21.  Thus,  when  neither the Aligarh Water  Works  nor  its property  stood  transferred  to and  vested  in  the  Board (respondent-1) so as to make it the owner thereof, the  mere fact  that on 1.4.1975, the Administrator  of  respondent-1, who  made an order revoking the licence of the appellant  in respect  of the water works, stated in his order  that  from 1.4.1975,  the  date  of  revocation  of  the  licence,  the property therein vested in the Board (respondent-1), did not make  the  appellant  lose  the ownership  of  it  and  make respondent-1 get the ownership thereof. 22.  Apart  from what we have stated as to non-transfer  and non-vesting   of  the  property  of  the  water   works   in respondent-1,  the reply given on 1.4.1975 by the  appellant to  the order of the Administrator of respondent-1  made  on the same date, revoking his licence from 1.4.1975, which  is excerpted  by  us  already,  would  clearly  show  that  the appellant disputed the statement of transfer and vesting  of water works in respondent-1, made in the order and  required respondent  -1 to purchase the property of the appellant  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

provided for in Section 224-C of the Act, as it stood then. 23.  It  is  no  doubt stated in the  said  reply  that  the appellant  had  decided to handover the  undertaking  (water works)  under  protest,  but  it  was  unambiguously  stated therein that even if the appellant is ready to handover  the water  works,  the order made by the  Administrator  of  re- spondent-1  will  have  only the  effect  of  requiring  the appellant  to  sell  its property in  the  water  works,  as provided for under clause (b) of Section 224-C, as it  stood then,  can mean only that the vesting of  appellant’s  water works or its property in respondent-1, could take place only after  the  sale  effected  by  them,  as  required  by  the provision therein. 24.  From what we have stated above, it becomes obvious that the Aligarh Water Works or the property therein belonging to the appellant did not vest in respondent-1 according to  the order of revocation made by the Administrator of respondent- 1,  with effect from the date of revocation  of  appellant’s licence in waterworks from 1.4.1975, so as to make 258 respondent-1 liable to pay to the appellant only money value of the water-works, that is, a chose-in-action on and  after 1.4.1975,  as  contended  for by  learned  counsel  for  the appellant. Contention-2: 25.Among  other  provisions in the Act, Sections  224-B  and 224-C  were substituted by Ordinance 16 of 1975,  which  was replaced  by  Act 45 of 1975.  Section 224B of  the  Act  as substituted by Section 2 of Act 45 of 1975, reads thus:               "224B.  Every licence granted under clause (c)               of section 224 shall, if not already  revoked,               stand revoked with effect from June 13, 1975. 26.Section 224-C of the Act, as substituted by Section 3  of Act  45 of 1975 in so far it becomes material for  the  pur- poses of this case, reads thus:               "224-C.(1) Where the licence of a licensee  is               revoked  under  section  224-B  as  it   stood               immediately before the commencement of the  U.               Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1975, or where               such  licence stands revoked by virtue of  the               new  section 224B as substituted by  the  said               Act, all the property pertaining to the  water               works  (namely,  all  existing  water   supply               services,  including  all  plants,  machinery,               water works, pumping sets, filter beds,  water               mains and pipes laid down along, over or under               any public street, and all buildings and other               works,    materials,   stores    and    things               appurtenant thereto) belonging to or vested in               the  licensee immediately before the  date  of               revocation of the licence (hereinafter in this               section referred to as ’the said date’)  shall               as  from  the  said date  vest  in  and  stand               transferred     tothe  Board  free  from   any               debt,mortgage  or  similar obligation  of  the               licensee attached to  such property:               Provided  that  any  such  debt,  mortgage  or               similar obligation shall attach to the  amount               referred   to   in   sub-   section   (2)   in               substitution for such property.               (2)   Where  any  property  belonging  to  the               licensee  vests in the Board under  subsection               (1),  not being water works of which only  the               management was transferred to him by the Board               under  clause  (d) of Section 224,  the  Board

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

             shall   pay   to  such  licensee   an   amount               determined  as  hereinafter provided  in  this               section;               Provided that the licensee shall, in  addition               to  the said amount, be paid interest  thereon               at  the Reserve Bank rate ruling on  the  said               date  plus one percentum for the  period  from               the  said date to the date of payment  of  the               said amount.               (3)   The  State Government shall appoint,  by               order  in  writing, a person  having  adequate               knowledge  and experience in matters  relating               to  accounts, to be special officer to  assess               any  amount payable under this section to  the               licensee after making the deductions mentioned               in this section.               (4)   (a) The Special Officer may call for the               assistance  of such officers and of the  State               Government   in   the   Local   SelfGovernment               Engineering Department or of the Licensee,  as               he  may deem fit for assessing the net  amount               payable.                (b)  The Special Officer shall have the  same               powers  as are vested in a Civil  Court  under               the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying               a suit in respect of the fol lowing matters               (i)   enforcing  the attendance of any  person               and examining him on oath;               (ii)  compelling the production of  documents;               and               259               (iii) issuing  commissions for the  nation  of               witnesses.               The  Special  Officer  shall  also  have  such               further  powers  as may be  specified  by  the               State   Government  by  notification  in   the               Gazette.               (5)   The gross amount payable to such be  the               aggregate value of the amounts specified below               - 27.  Sub-section  (2) of Section 1 of Act 45 of 1975,  which refers to commencement of that Act reads, thus:               "(2)  Section 3 shall be deemed to  have  come               into  force  an  January  1,  1975,  and   the               provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have               come into force on June 13, 1975." 28.  Under  the said new Section 224-C of the Act where  the licence of a licensee. is revoked under Section 224-B, as it Stood immediately before the commencement of Act 45 of 1975, all  the  property pertaining to water works vested  in  the licensee  immediately before die date of revocation  of  the licence (to be referred to as the said date). vested in  and stood transferred to the Board free from any debt,  mortgage or  similar  obligations of the licensee  attached  to  such property. 29.  While  dealing  with Contention-1 above. we  have  held that  the  licence of the appellant in  respect  of  Aligarh Water  Works  was revoked by respondents  with  effect  from 1.4.1975  under  Section 224B(2Xa) of the Act, as  it  stood before it was substituted by new Section 224-B by  Act 45 of 1975,  and that neither the water works nor the property  of the  appellant in Aligarh Water Works, the licence of  which was  revoked  on 1.4.1975, vest in  respondent-1  either  on 1.4.1975  or subsequently, since the property in  the  Water Works  was  not sold by the appellant  to  respondent-1,  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

required under that Section.  We have also held therein that the  appellant  itself  did not agree for the  sale  of  its property  to  be  completed  as  provided  under  the   said provision, so that the properties could vest in  respondent- 1.  It is beyond dispute that no sale of the property of the appellant  in  Aligarh  Water Works was made  in  favour  of respondent1  before Ordinance 16 of 1975 and Act 45 of  1975 came  into  force.  If that be so, the property  in  Aligarh Water Works of the appellant continued to belong to him even when the said Ordinance and said Act came into force.  It is for that reason, it has to be held that the property of  the appellant  in Aligarh Water Works vested in respondent-1  on 31.3.1975, immediately before the, date of revocation of the licence i. e. 1.4.1975, as envisaged under new Section  224- C(1)  of  the Act.  If that be so, the value or  the  amount payable  to the appellant for its property in Aligarh  Water Works was the amount pay able under new Section 224-C of the Act and not the. value, which had to be paid under the,  old Section 224-C as it stood before its amendment. 30.  Thus, the question of the value of the property of  the appellant in Aligarh Water Works becoming a  chose-in-action on the date of revocation of the licence of the appellant of the  water works i.e., on 1.4.1975, under Section  224-C  of the  Act, as it stood before its amendment, did  not  arise. The  present  contention raised on behalf of  the  appellant that  Act 45 of 1975 was constitutionally invalid  as  being violative of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, as is 260 pointed  out  earlier, is founded on the  premise  that  the acquisition sought to be made thereunder of the property  of the  appellant  in Aligarh Water Works was  money,  i.e.,  a chose-in-action.  But, as we have held, that was transferred from  the  appellant and vested in respondent- 1  under  new Section  224-C(1) of the Act which was substituted  for  old Section 224-C of the Act by Act 45 of 1975 is Aligarh  Water Works, that is, tangible immovable property therein and  its value, i.e., chose-inaction, the present contention does not survive for consideration. Contention-3: 31.This contention relates to the liability of respondent- 1 to   pay  to  the  appellant  interest  on  the  amount   of Rs.5,39,755/- as required by the proviso to sub-section  (2) of  Section 224-C, as it stands substituted for old  Section 224-C by Act 45 of 1975.  That proviso, which is  reproduced by  us earlier, makes it clear that on the  amount’  payable for  the property in the water works of the licensee  vested in the Board, the Board shall pay to such licensee in  addi- tion  to the amount determined under the  Section,  interest thereon  at  the Reserve Bank rate ruling on the  said  date plus  one percentum for the period from the said  date  (the date immediately before the date of vesting of water  works) to the date of payment of the said amount.  Therefore,  when the  proviso  requires  payment  by  respondent-  1  of  the interest  on the amount of Rs.5,39,755/- from  31.3.1975  to 1.2.1989  to the appellant as above, respondent-1 is  liable to  pay  the  appellant interest  on  Rs.5,39,755/-  at  the Reserve  Bank rate ruling on the said date, i.e., 9  percent per  annum plus one percentum for the period from  the  said date,  i.e.,  31.3.1975 to the payment of the  said  amount, i.e., 1.2.1989, which works out to Rs. 7,45,828/-. 32.We, therefore, hold that respondent1 is liable to pay  to the appellant towards interest on-the amount payable to it a sum of Rs.7,45,828/- less the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited by it with the Registrar of Allahabad High Court pursuant to this Court’s Order dated 3.12.1990.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

Contention-4: 33.A  sum  of Rs.2,50,000/- is said to have  been  deposited with the Registrar, Allahabad High Court, towards part  pay- ment  of interest on the amount payable by  respondent-1  to the appellant towards water works, i.e., the property of the appellant in Aligarh Water Works.  ’Mr, amount so deposited, could be got by the appellant from the Registrar of the High Court,  since we have given deduction of this amount out  of the  interest  payable to the appellant while  dealing  with Contention3 . 34.Subject  to what we have said of the amount  of  interest liable to be paid by respondent-1 to the appellant, this ap- peal is dismissed, but without costs. 35.However,  we direct respondent-1 to pay to the  appellant within  three months from today, the balance of interest  of Rs.4,95,828/-  liable  to  be paid by  respondent-1  to  the appellant, together with interest at the rate of IO per cent per annum from 1.2.1989 till the date of its payment. 263