http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PATEL BAVA KARSAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/02/1980

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA KAILASAM, P.S. KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1144            1980 SCR  (2)1087  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1982 SC 781  (5)

ACT:      Constitution of  India  1950,  Articles  14  and  19  & Gujarat  Municipality   Act  Sections  233  and  236-Statute empowering eviction  from  municipal  premise-An  appeal  to government  against   the  order   of   eviction   provided- Constitutional validity of provisions.

HEADNOTE:      Section 233  of the  Gujarat Municipality Act empowered the Chief  Officer of the Municipality to evict persons from municipal premises.      Respondent No.  1 in  the appeals  was  required  by  a notice in  pursuance of  the provisions of section 233(1) of the Act  to hand  over possession  of a piece of land to the Municipality on  the ground  that  he  was  in  unauthorised occupation thereof.  The respondent  assailed the  notice in proceedings under  Article 226  of the Constitution, and the only point  in controversy was whether or not section 233 of the Act  under which the proceedings for eviction were taken was constitutionally  valid. The  High Court  in view  of  a previous decision  of that court held that section 233 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution was ultra vires.      In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of  the   respondents:  (1)  that  the  Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporations case  was not  correctly decided because though in Chhaganlal Maganlal’s case there was a right to appeal to a Civil  Court and  the right  to take evidence was given by the Statute  concerned, in  the former, the relevant statute contained no such provisions, and (2) that the provisions of the  Gujarat  Act  were  violative  of  Article  19  of  the Constitution.      Allowing the appeals, ^      HELD :  (1)(i) The  judgment of  the High  Court is set aside and  the order  of  the  Chief  Officer  dated  9-3-66 affirmed. [1090G]      (ii) In  the case  of Northern Indian Caterers’ Private Limited v.  State of  Punjab and  others. [1967] 3 SCR, 399, this Court while considering a statute whose provisions were almost similar  to those  of section  233 of the Gujarat Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

took the  same view  as the  High Court  and struck down the Statute.  This   decision  held   the  field  until  it  was ultimately overruled  in the  case of  Chhaganlal  Maganlal, [1975] 1  SCR 1.  In a later decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and  others v.  Raman Lal  Govind Ram and others [1975] 3  SCR 935,  this Court  while following  the case of Chhaganlal  Maganlal   upheld  a  provision  of  the  Bombay Provincial Municipal  Corporation (Gujarat  Amendment)  Act, 1963 which  was in  pari materia  with section  233  of  the Gujarat Act. [1090A-C]      (iii) Once  the property belonging to the Government or semi-Government bodies  is held  to fall within a particular class and  therefore a  reasonable classification, whether a civil remedy  is given  or not  would not  be  violative  of Article 14 of the Constitution. [1090D-E] 15-138SCI/80 1088      (iv) Under Section 236, the respondents have a right to file an  appeal to the Government against the impugned order of eviction. This section also contains a specific provision under which the delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown to  the satisfaction of the appellate authority namely the Government. It will be open to the respondent to file an appeal which  will be  disposed  of  by  the  Government  in accordance with law. [1090G-H, 1091A]      (2) The  contention that  the provisions of the Gujarat Act were  violative of  Article 19  of the  Constitution was expressly considered  and negatived  in Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporation & ors. v. Ramanla Govindaram & Ors. [1090E-F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 1596 and 1224 of 1970.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  31-1-1970  of  the Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 438/66.      T. U.  Mehta, D.  N. Mishra  and K.  J. Johan  for  the appellant CA 1224/70 & RR. 1516/70.      S. C.  Patel and  M. N. Shroff for the Appellant CA No. 1596/70.      M. K.  Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar for Respondent No. 1 CA No. 1224/70.      S. C.  Patel and  M. N.  Shroff for Respondent No. 2 CA No. 1224/70.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J. This  appeal by  certificate is directed against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 31-1-1970 issuing a  writ  of  mandamus  to  the  Rajkot  Municipality directing it  to desist  from enforcing  a notice dated 9-3- 1966 served  on  respondent  No.  1  and  requiring  him  in pursuance of  the provisions  of s.  233(1) of  the  Gujarat Municipality Act  (hereinafter referred  to as  the  Gujarat Act’) to  hand over  possession of  a piece  of land  to the Municipality on  the ground  that  he  was  in  unauthorised occupation thereof. The only point in controversy before the High Court  was as  to whether  or not s. 233 of the Gujarat Act,  under  which  the  proceedings  for  eviction  of  the respondent No. 1 were taken, was constitutionally valid. The High Court in view of a previous decision of that Court held that s.  233 being  violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of  India  was  ultra  vires.  The  appellants  applied  for certificate for  leave to appeal under Art. 133(1) (c) which was granted; hence this appeal.      Section 233 of the Gujarat Act runs thus:-           "233.  Power   to  evict   certain  persons   from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    municipal  premises.   (1)  If  the  Chief  Officer  is      satisfied-           (a)   that the  person authorised  to  occupy  any                premises  belonging   to   the   municipality                (hereinafter referred to 1089                as "the  municipal premises")  as a tenant or                otherwise has-                (i)   not paid  rent  lawfully  due  from  in                     respect of such premises for a period of                     more than two months, or                (ii) sub-let,  without the  permission of the                     municipality, the  whole or  any part of                     such premises, or                (iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any                     of the  terms, express or implied, under                     which he  is authorised  to occupy  such                     premises, or           (b)  that any person is in unauthorised occupation                of any municipal premises,      the  Chief   Officer  may,   notwithstanding   anything      contained in  any law  for the  time being in force, by      notice served (i) by post or (ii) by affixing a copy of      it on  the outer door or some other conspicuous part of      such premises,  or (iii) in such other manner as may be      provided in  the rules  made by  the  State  Government      order that  the person  as well as any other person who      may be  in occupation  of the  whole or any part of the      premises, shall  vacate them  within one  month of  the      date of the service of the notice.           (2) Before  an order under sub-section (1) is made      against any  person the  Chief Officer shall inform the      person by notice in writing of the grounds on which the      proposed order  is to be made and give him a reasonable      opportunity of  tendering an  explanation and producing      evidence, if  any, and  to show  cause why  such  order      should not  be made, within a period to be specified in      such notice. If such person makes an application to the      chief officer  for extension of the period specified in      the notice the chief officer may grant the same on such      terms as  to payment and recovery of the amount claimed      in the  notice as  it deems  fit. Any written statement      put  in  by  such  person  and  documents  produced  in      pursuance of such notice shall be filed with the record      of the case and such person shall be entitled to appear      before the  authority proceeding  in this connection by      advocate, attorney or 1090      pleader. Such  notice in writing shall be served in the      manner provided for service of notice under sub-section      (1).             ....                                        .... ...."      It appears  that in the case of Northern India Caterers Pvt. Ltd.  & Anr.  v. State  of Punjab  & Anr.(1) this Court while construing  a statute  whose  provisions  were  almost similar to  those of s. 233 of the Gujarat Act took the same view as  the High  Court and  struck down  the statute. This decision held the field until it was ultimately overruled in the case of Chhaganlal Maganlal(2).      In a  later decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors.  v. Ramanlal  Govindram &  Ors.(3) this  Court  while following the case of Chhaganlal Maganlal upheld a provision of the  Bombay  Provincial  Municipal  Corporation  (Gujarat Amendment) Act,  1963 which  was in pari materia with s. 233

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

of the  Gujarat Act.  Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi appearing for the respondents submitted that Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s case (supra)  was not  correctly decided  because though  in Chhaganlal Maganlal’s  case (supra)  there was  a  right  to appeal to  a Civil  Court and the right to take evidence was given by  the statute concerned, in the former, the relevant statute contained  no such  provision. This  contention does not  appear   to  be   well-founded  because  once  property belonging to  the Government  or semi-Government  bodies  is held to  fall within  a particular  class  and  therefore  a reasonable classification,  whether a  civil remedy is given or not would not be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution on the  broad principle  laid down  in Chhaganlal Maganlal’s case.      It was  also argued  that the provisions of the Gujarat Act were  violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution of India. This contention  was expressly  considered and  negatived by this Court  in Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporation  &  Ors.  v. Ramanlal  Govindram  &  Ors.  (supra)  with  which  we  find ourselves in  complete agreement. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirm the order of the Chief Officer dated 9-3-1966.      We might,  however, observe  that under  section 236 of the Gujarat,  Act, the  respondents have  a right to file an appeal to  the Government  against  the  impugned  order  of eviction. This  section also  contains a  specific provision under which  delay can  be condoned  if sufficient  cause is shown to the satisfaction of the appellate autho- 1091 rity namely  the Government. In these circumstances, it will be open  to  the  respondents  to  file  an  appeal  to  the Government against the order of eviction passed by the Chief Officer which  will be  disposed of  by  the  Government  in accordance with the law.      There will be no order as to costs. N.K.A.                                      Appeals allowed. 1092