1986 (3) TMI 333 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Material for State Government's opinion u/s 41(1) of the Act.
2. Personal hearing of objections u/s 41(1) of the Act.
3. Notification error regarding land description.
4. Constitutionality of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 44 of the Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Material for State Government's opinion u/s 41(1) of the Act

The respondents contended that there was no material with the State Government to form an opinion about the need for issuing the notification u/s 41(1) of the Act. The High Court found sufficient basis for the Government to form an opinion about the need for issuing the notification u/s 41(1) of the Act through the correspondence between the Government, the Authority, Municipal Council, Lonavala, and representations from the public.

Issue 2: Personal hearing of objections u/s 41(1) of the Act

The respondents argued that they had not been heard personally after filing objections u/s 41(1) of the Act. The High Court found that respondent No.3, acting on behalf of all the heirs, had lodged objections and was personally heard by the Collector, Pune, before the notification's publication u/s 41(1) of the Act, thus suffering no prejudice.

Issue 3: Notification error regarding land description

Respondents claimed their land had not been notified correctly. The High Court found that the error in the land description had been corrected by a corrigendum, leaving no doubt about the land's identity being acquired.

Issue 4: Constitutionality of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 44 of the Act

The High Court upheld the respondents' contention that sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 44 of the Act were unreasonable, discriminatory, and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court found that these provisions were not protected by Article 31C and were otherwise unfair, unjust, and unreasonable. The Supreme Court, however, held that the classification of land into municipal and rural areas for valuation purposes was valid and not discriminatory. The method of capitalization was a recognized method for determining market value. The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 44 were upheld as they were protected by Article 31C, aiming to secure the principles specified in Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its judgment regarding the constitutionality of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 44 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed, with no order as to costs.