http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KHURAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, KHURAI AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/08/1998

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, B.K. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave is  directed against the judgment and  order of  the High  Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 8th January, 1995.      The only  question for  consideration  is  whether  the respondent/market   Comittee   was   liable   to   pay   any compensation  to   the  Municipal   Council  for   the  land comprising in Khasra No. 412/2, which was transferred by the Municipal Council  to the  Market Committee, since that land was earlier  also being  used for  the purpose of the market Committee by the Municipal Council.      The land  in question is located in Khasra No.412/2 and measures about  7 acres.  It was  acquired by  the Municipal council under  a gift  from Seth  Mohan  Lan  for  a  public purpose, namely  - to  establish a  grain market in the year 1912. This land, alongwith some other land and buildings was transferred to  the  Market  Committee.  Appellant  demanded compensation  for   the  land   and  buildings.  The  Market committee challenged the demand through a writ petition. The writ petition  was allowed  and the  case  remanded  to  the Collector for  determination of  compensation. The Collector determined compensation for the land and buildings including the land  comprising in  Khasra No.  412/2. The order of the Collector  was   successfully  challenged   by  the   Market Committee through a writ petition in the High Court.      We have  heard learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and examined the record.      Section 100(1) (g) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 reads thus:-      100. Property  vested in  Council -      (1)   Subject    to   any   special      reservation made  or to any special      conditions  imposed  by  the  State      Government,  all  property  of  the      nature hereinafter  in this section      specified within  the limits of the      Municipality, shall  vest in and be      under the  control of  the  Council      and with  all other  property which      has   already    vested,   or   may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    hereafter  vest   in  the  Councils      shall be  held and applied by it as      trustees for  the purposes  of this      Act, this is to say -      (g) all lands and/or other property      transferred to  the Council  by the      state  Government  or  acquired  by      gift, purchase  or  otherwise,  for      public purpose."      Since, the land in question had been transferred to the Council by  way of  a gift  for a  public purpose, that land would be  deemed to  have vested in the council by virtue of the aforesaid  provisions  of  Section  100  of  the  Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.      Section  14(1)   and  (2)   of   the   Madhya   Pradesh Agricultural Produce markets Act, 1960 read thus :-      14.  Vesting  of  the  property  of      local  authority   in  the   market      committee   -    (1)   The   Market      committee  may   require  a   local      authority to  transfer any  land or      building  belonging  to  the  local      authority, which is situated within      the   market    yard   and    which      immediately       before        the      establishment  of  the  market  was      being used  by the  local authority      for the purposes of the market, and      the local  authority shall,  within      one month  of the  receipt  of  the      requisition, transfer,  the land or      building, as  the case  may be,  to      the market  committee on such terms      as may be agreed upon between them.      (2) Where within a period of thirty      days from  the date  of receipt  of      requisition by  the local authority      under sub-section  (1) no agreement      is  reached   between   the   local      authority and  the market committee      under  the  said  sub-section,  the      land or  building required  by  the      market committee  shall vest in the      committee for  the purposes of this      Act and  the local  authority shall      be paid such compensation as may be      determined by  the Collector  under      sub-section (4) :      Provided that no compensation shall      be payable  to a local authority in      respect of  any  land  to  a  local      authority in vested in it by virtue      of the  provisions contained in the      enactment    relating     to    the      constitution    of    such    local      authority without  payment  of  any      amount whatsoever for such vesting;      Provided  further  that  any  party      aggrieved  by   the  order  of  the      Collector may,  within thirty  days      from the date of such order, appeal      to the State Government."      A plain reading of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section  14 of the 1960 Act shows that no compensation is required to  be paid  to the local authority for transfer of

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

any  land  or  building  which  had  vested  in  that  local authority, by  virtue of  the provisions  contained  in  the enactment  relating   to  the  constitution  of  that  local authority, without payment of any amount whatsoever for such vesting. The land comprising in Khasra No.412/2 was given as a gift  to the  local authority i.e. Municipal Council for a public purpose  by operation  of the  provisions of  Section 100(1) (g)  of the  Municipalities Act  (supra) and the same vested in  the Council  under the enactment constituting the local authority.  Under the  proviso to Section 14(2) of the 1960 Act,  the Municipal Council was not entitled to receive any compensation  for transfer  of such  land to  the Market Committee. It  is not  disputed that  immediately before the establishment of  the Market  Committee, that  very land was being used  by the  local authority  for the purposes of the market. This  being the  fact situation, bot on facts and in law, the  High Court was perfectly justified in holding that since the  land comprising  in Khasra No.412/2 had vested in the appellant,  it would  not be  entitled  to  receive  any compensation,  since   no  amount  had  been  spent  by  the appellant for  acquisition of  that  land,  which  had  been gifted to  it for a public purpose. The judgment of the High Court  thus   calls  for   no  interference.   This   appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. No costs.