REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5692 OF 2001

Lokprakashan Ltd. .. Appellant

Versus

Kanchanbhai Kanbhai Tadvi & Others .. Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6299-6300 OF 2001

The Sandesh Limited .. Appellant

Versus

Rameshchandra Babulal Shah & Others .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari,   J.   

1. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

final  order  dated  15.6.2001  of  the  High  Court  of  Gujarat  

passed in Special Civil Application No.723 of 2000 along with  

Special Civil Application Nos.2994 and 6470 of 1999.  

2. As  the  common  question  of  law  is  involved  in  these  

appeals,  therefore,  these  appeals  are  being  disposed  by  a  

common judgment.  The facts of the Civil Appeal No.5692 of  

2001  are  recapitulated  for  properly  comprehending  the  

controversy in the case.

3. A daily Newspaper namely ‘Gujarat Samachar’ started its  

publication  of  a  Gujarat  local  daily  newspaper  from  

Ahmedabad in 1932.   

4. An application was made by the appellant Lokprakashan  

Limited on 19.1990 to the Municipal Commissioner for grant  

of 5000 Sq. Mtrs. of land belonging to the Baroda Municipal  

Corporation comprised in  Final  Plot  No.1 of  Town Planning  

Scheme No.9 situated at Baroda at a reasonable price.  It was  

prayed  in  the  application  that  the  Lokprakashan daily  was  

publishing a Gujarati Samachar daily from Baroda for the last  

seven years and as it did not have any premises of its own, it  

was operating from a rented premises.      

5. The  Municipal  Commissioner  prepared  a  proposal  for  

consideration of the Standing Committee for allotment of land  

2

of 5000 Sq. Mtrs. at a price to be fixed by the Deputy Town  

Planner for transfer of the land.

6. The proposal was considered by the Standing Committee  

of  the  Municipal  Corporation  who  has  passed  a  resolution  

dated  29.11.1990  bearing  No.  646,  inter  alia  resolving  to  

approve the proposal of the Commissioner.   The resolution of  

the Standing Committee was placed before the General Board  

of the Baroda Municipal Corporation.  There was a proposal  

for  confirmation and acceptance  of  the  recommendations  of  

the Standing Committee and the second proposal opposing the  

sale  of  the  land  to  the  appellant.  These  proposals  were  

considered vide Resolutions No.727 and 728.

7. It  may  be  pertinent  to  mention  that  respondent  no.1  

Kanchanbhai Kanbhai Tadvi was an elected Councilor and he  

was present at the meeting and both the proposals were taken  

up for consideration in his presence and he voted in favour of  

the proposals to accept the recommendation of the Standing  

Committee for sale of the land to the appellant and opposed  

the proposal for not selling the land to the appellant.

3

8. The appellant on 5.1.1991 addressed a communication to  

the Municipal Commissioner, Baroda Municipal Corporation,  

inter  alia expressing its consent to pay the price as may be  

fixed  by  the  Deputy  Town  Planner  and  also  expressed  its  

consent to pay valuation fees on that behalf.

9. The Baroda Municipal Corporation on 7.1.1991 applied  

to the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat for grant  

of exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and  

Regulation)  Act,  1976 (hereinafter  referred to  as  the  ‘Urban  

Act’) with respect to the land sold to the appellant as well as  

with respect to the lands comprised in final plot No.1 of town  

planning scheme No.9 originally comprised in revenue survey  

No. 94.  Exemption was sought for other lands to be sold to  

the Indian Airlines, Baroda Urban Development Authority and  

Gujarat State Fertilizers Company Ltd. as well as exemption  

was sought with respect to the land to be sold to the appellant.

10. The State of Gujarat on 27.5.1993 through the Deputy  

Secretary,  Revenue  Department,  in  exercise  of  power  under  

section 20 of the Act, pursuant to the proposal made for grant  

of  exemption  to  the  land  admeasuring  5000  Sq.  Mtrs.  

proposed to be sold to the appellant, granted exemption under  

4

section 20 the Act, subject to certain conditions stipulated in  

the said order.

11. The Deputy Commissioner called upon the appellant to  

pay an amount of Rs.55 lakhs towards the price of the land  

valued at Rs.1100/- per Sq. Mtr.

12. The appellant, vide letter dated 26.10.1993, pointed out  

that very recently an adjoining land situated in the same final  

plot was sold to the Baroda Urban Development Authority at  

Rs.900/- per Sq. Mtr.  Therefore, considering the said price an  

appropriate  decision  should  be  taken  with  respect  to  the  

valuation fixed by the Town Planner at Rs.1100/- per Sq. Mtr.  

13. The  then  Administrator  of  the  Baroda  Municipal  

Corporation on 9.11.1993 addressed a communication to the  

Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and the Urban  

Housing  Department  pointing  out  that  it  was  decided  in  

principle to sell  5000 Sq. Mtrs.  of  land to the appellant for  

which the State Government had also granted exemption on  

27.5.1993.   It was pointed out that the nearby land situated  

in same final plot No.1 adjoining the land sold to the appellant  

was  sold  to  the  Baroda  Urban  Development  Authority  at  

5

Rs.900/-  per  Sq.  Mtr.   The  Town  Planning  Valuation  

Department had fixed the value at Rs.1100/- per Sq. Mtr., but  

in view of the representation made by the appellant,  it  was  

decided to take necessary steps on that behalf.

14. The appellant was informed by a letter dated 18.12.1993,  

to deposit an amount of Rs.50 lakhs towards the consideration  

of the sale price at Rs.1000/- per Sq. Mtr. as no final decision  

was  taken  by  the  State  Government  with  respect  to  

reconsideration of fixation of valuation and the appellant was  

also asked to give a bank guarantee of Rs.5 lakhs valid for a  

period of  one year.  The appellant  was also informed that it  

would be informed about the differential amount to be paid or  

received by the State Government.

15. The appellant forwarded a Cheque dated 21.12.1993 of  

Rs.50 lakhs drawn on the Central Bank.

16. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Administration) of  

the Municipal Corporation, Baroda on 23.12.1993 executed a  

possession receipt and handed over the possession of 5000 Sq.  

Mtrs. of land comprised in final plot No.1 of Town Planning  

6

Scheme No. 9 in accordance with the approval of the same by  

the Municipal Commissioner, Baroda Municipal Corporation.

17. A letter was addressed by the Office of the Town Planning  

Department,  State of Gujarat on 5.1.1994 pointing out that  

the price fixed by the Deputy Town Planner by his letter dated  

30.8.1993 at Rs.1100/- per Sq. Mtr. was just and proper.    

18. A registered ‘Deed of Sale’ was entered into between the  

appellant  and  the  Baroda  Municipal  Corporation  on  

17.4.1995.  Under the delegation of powers contained under  

the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, the powers  

of  the  Commissioner  to  sign  the  document  of  sale  are  

delegated  to  the  Land  Estate  Officer  who  had  signed  the  

document for sale.   

19. It  is  submitted  that  the  appellant  had  invested  its  

available funds in setting up other Presses at Surat, Rajkot  

and Bombay and, therefore, on account of diversion of funds,  

it had not been possible for the appellant to erect the Press  

Building on the land in question immediately after  the sale  

deed was executed.

7

20. One Dinesh B. Shukla, who was petitioner no. 2 before  

the High Court made representation to the Chief Minister of  

the  State  of  Gujarat  on  12.11.1999,  inter  alia  seeking  

cancellation of the grant of exemption granted to the appellant  

by order dated 27.5.1993.

21. A petition being Special Civil Application No.723 of 2000  

was  filed  before  the  High  Court  on  20.1.2000  praying  for  

issuance  of  a  writ  to  set  aside  the  order  of  the  State  

Government dated 27.5.1993 exempting the land in question  

under  section  20  of  the  Act  and  also  to  set  aside  the  

Resolution of the General Board of the Municipal Corporation.

22. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned  

judgment held in favour of the petitioner Corporation before it  

and directed the Corporation to pay the amount paid by the  

appellant with interest.  Hence, these appeals.

23. According  to  the  appellant  the  public  interest  petition  

filed against  him was an abuse of  the process of  the court  

because the appellant was granted approval by the concerned  

authorities  almost  a  decade  ago  and thereafter  the  petition  

8

was filed with an oblique motive.  This petition deserves to be  

dismissed on the ground of latches alone.

24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on  

the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India &  

Others (2000) 10 SCC 664 and particularly emphasized on the  

finding of this Court that just because the petition is termed  

as  a  public  interest  litigation  does  not  mean that  ordinary  

principles applicable to litigation will not apply.   

25. According  to  the  appellant,  the  impugned  judgment  of  

the  High  Court  is  wholly  unsustainable  in  view  of  the  law  

declared  by  this  Court.   There  has  been  no  explanation  

whatsoever for  an inordinate  delay for  more  than 10 years.  

The  writ  petition  filed  by  the  respondent  deserves  to  be  

dismissed with costs.  

26. The appellant next relied on S.P. Gupta v. President of  

India & Others 1981 (Supp) SCC 87, wherein it was observed  

in para 24 as under:

“But we must be careful to see that the member of  the public,  who approaches the Court in cases of  this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal  gain or private profit or political motivation or other  oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its  

9

process to be abused by politicians and others to  delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a  political objective...”  

27. The  appellant  also  submitted  that  section  79  of  the  

Bombay  Provisional  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  1949,  

particularly clause (c) thereof, clearly permits the Corporation  

to  sell  immovable  property  even  without  public  auction  

provided the procedure is fully followed.   In the instant case,  

the  procedure  was admittedly  fully  followed.    The  price  at  

which the land was sold was Rs.1000/- per Sq. Mtr. and it  

was not less than the then current market value because the  

Town  Planner  had  suggested  Rs.1100/-  per  Sq.  Mtr.,  the  

adjoining  plot  was  auctioned  by  the  Baroda  Urban  

Development  Authority  at  a  price  of  Rs.900/-  per  Sq.  Mtr.  

Thus the price was also reasonable and not below the market  

value.   

28. The  appellant  had  paid  a  sum  of  Rs.50  lakhs  @  

Rs.1000/- per Sq. Mtr. before this Court and thus, section 79  

stands complied with.   

29. The  appellant  also  submitted  that  it  is  an established  

newspaper since 1932 and this Court has clearly upheld the  

10

right of the newspapers under Article 19(1)(a)  in a series of  

judgments  including  the  following:   Indian  Express  

Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. & Others v. Union of  

India & Others (1985) 1 SCC 641; Express Newspapers Pvt.  

Ltd. & Others  v. Union of India & Others (1986) 1 SCC  

133.

30. Therefore, even otherwise the decision to sell the land to  

the appellant was to sub-serve the public interest because it is  

now  held  that  not  only  the  Press  have  a  right  guaranteed  

under  Article  19(1)(a)  of  freedom  of  speech  through  

publication,  but  public  at  large  has  the  right  to  have  

information disseminated, as held in the case of  Tata Press  

Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (1995) 5 SCC 139.

31. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted  

that the purchase of the land has been totally in consonance  

of  all  rules  and  regulations  and  with  the  approval  of  the  

concerned authorities.   All  procedural  formalities  have been  

strictly complied with.  Even the sale deed was also executed  

long back in the year 1995 and this petition was filed after a  

gap of more than a decade with oblique motive is an abuse of  

the process of the court.

11

32. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sale  

of land in favour of the appellant Newspaper, by no stretch of  

imagination,  can be  said  to  be  in  violation  of  any  rules  or  

regulations.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our  

considered view,  the  impugned judgment  of  the  High Court  

cannot be sustained.   

33. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the impugned  

judgment  of  the  High Court  is  set  aside.   In the  facts  and  

circumstances of this case, we direct the parties are directed  

to bear their own costs.

…….……………………..J.  (Dalveer Bhandari)

…….……………………..J.  (Harjit Singh Bedi)

New Delhi; August 27, 2009.

12