Lokprakashan Ltd vs Kanchanbhai Kanbhai Tadvi & Ors

Special Civil Application Nos.2994 and 6470 of 1999. 2

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 3

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. 4

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 5 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 6

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 7

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.

8

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 9

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 10

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 11

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.

12

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.