Holding

The sale of land to the newspaper, with exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, did not violate any rule or regulation, and the High Court’s order to refund the amount was unsustainable.

Summary

Lokprakashan Ltd., a newspaper, applied to Baroda Municipal Corporation for 5,000 sq. m of land. The corporation’s Standing Committee approved the sale, and the Gujarat State Government granted an exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. After paying Rs 50 lakhs and receiving a possession receipt, a deed of sale was executed in 1995. A public‑interest litigation filed a decade later challenged the exemption and the sale, and the Gujarat High Court ordered the corporation to return the amount with interest. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the sale, with the statutory exemption, did not violate any rule or regulation, that the High Court’s order was unsustainable, and set aside that judgment, allowing the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the sale of municipal land to a newspaper, with exemption under s.20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, violated any statutory provisions.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the municipal corporation to refund the purchase price with interest.
Whether the exemption and sale complied with section 79 of the Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Whether the public‑interest litigation constituted an abuse of process.

Legislation cited

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976s. 20

Subjects

land salemunicipal corporationexemptionUrban Land Actpublic interest litigationabuse of processfreedom of pressArticle 19valuationsection 20section 79

Judgment

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 792

A LOKPRAKASHAN LTD.
v.
KANCHANBHAI KANBHAI TADVI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5692 of 2001 etc.)
AUGUST 27, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 -~
- s, 79 - Grant of land to newspaper by Municipal Corporation
C - Exemption granted by State uls. 20 of Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act - Sale of land in favour of newspaper -
High court upheld challenge to sale - On appeal, held: Sale
was not in violation of any rules or regulations - On faCts,
impugned order not,sustainable - Urban Land (Ceiling and
o Regulation) Act, 1976 - s. 20.
Appellant-Newspaper applied for grant of land which
belonged -to Municipal Corporation. Proposal for
allotment of the land in favour of the appellant was
approved by the Standing Committee of Municipal
E Corporation. State Government granted exemption u/s.
20 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 with
respect of the land sold to the appellant. Appellant
challenged valuation of the land at the rate of Rs. 11001-
per sq. mtr. Pending decision of valuation, appellant
F made payment at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. mtr. on the
asking of the authorities concerned. Municipal
Corporation also executed possession receipt in favour
of the appellant. Thereafter, valuation of the land was
approved. Conse_quently, deed of sale was executed.
G After about a decade a public interest litigation was filed
challenging the grant of exemption and execution of sale
deed. High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to
return the amount paid by the appellant with interest.

H 792
LOKPRAKASHAN LTD. v. KANCHANBHAI KANBHAI 793
TADVI AND ORS.

Hence the present appeals. A

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 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 8
circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment of the
High Court cannot be sustained. [Para 32] [800-C]

Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of India and Ors.
(2000) 10 SCC 664; S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors. c
1981 {Supp) SCC 87; Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)
Private Ltd. and Ors. v. URion of India and Ors. 1985 (1) SCC
641; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India
_______ ......_,1_ and Ors. 1986 (1) SCC 133; Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Ltd. 1995 (5) SCC 139 referred to. D
..\ 1'
Case Law Reference:
c2000) 1o sec 664 Referred to. Para 24
1981 {Supp) sec 87 Referred to. Para 26
E
1985 (1) sec 641 Referred to. Para 29
1986 (1) sec 133 Referred to. Para 29
->- 1995 (5) sec 139 Referred to. Para 30
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5692 of 2001.

From the Judgment & Order dated 15.6.2001 of the High
Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 723 of 2000.
G
WITH
·-1
C.A. Nos. 6299-6300 of 2001.

D.A. Dave, Anip Sachtehy, Mohit Paul and V.D. Khanna
H
- 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A (NP) for the Appellant. f~
Manu Nair, Arun Mohan,' (for Mis. Suresh A. Shroff & Co.)
Hemantika Wahi, Mamta Tushir, Garvesh Kabra and Shrish
Kumar Misra for the Respondents.
B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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
c 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 -l_,,,..lls...
common judgment. The facts of the Civil Appeal No.5692 of
0 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
E 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
F
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.
G
5. The Municipal Commissioner prepared a proposal for )-- ·-
consideration of the Standing Committee for allotment of land
of 5000 Sq. Mtrs. at a price to be fixed by the Deputy Town
Planner for transfer of the land.
H
LOKPRAKASHAN LTD. v. KANCHANBHAI KANBHAI 795
TADVI AND ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

~ 6. The proposal was considered by the Standing A
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 B
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 c
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 D
~
the proposal for not selling the land to the appellant.

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 E
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 F
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 G
/--i 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 H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Secretary, Revenue Department, in exercise of Rower 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 section
20 the Act, subject to certain conditions stipulated in the said
B 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. ~-

c 12. The appellant, vide letter dated 26.10.1993, pointed
out that very recently an adjoining land situated in the sa.me 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
D valuation fixed by the Town Planner at Rs.1100/- per Sq. Mtr.
). .
13. The then Admif1istrator 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
E 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 Rs.900/-
F 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.

G 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
H
LOKPRAKASHAN LTD. v. KANCHANBHAI KANBHAI 797
TADVI AND ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

period of one year. The appellant was also informed that it A
,;o,.. 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.SO lakbs drawn on the Central Bank. 8
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
Scheme No. 9 in accordance with the approval of the same by c
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 D
dated 30.8.1993 at Rs.1100/- per Sq. Mtr. was just and proper.
) ,I{

.. 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
E
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, the powers of th
Commissioner to sign the document of sale are delegate
to the Land Estate Officer who had signed the docu
ent for sale. o19. It is submitted that the appellant had in
ested its available funds in setting up other Presses at Surat,
->- Rajkot and Bombay and, therefore,·on account of diversion of F
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.

20. One Dinesh B. Shukla, who was petitioner no. 2 before G
the High Court made representation to the Chief Minister of the
State of Gujarat on 12.11.1999, inter alia seeking cancellation
/-i 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 H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

~''
1'

A 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.
B
22. The Division ~~nch ofJhe 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. -.J.
c 23. According to the appellant the public interest petition
filed against him was an abuse of the process of the court t

because the appellant was granted approval by the concerned ~
authorities almost a decade ago and thereafter the petition was
filed with an oblique motive. This petition deserves to be
D dismissed on the ground of latches alone. ~

).. '
24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied ~.

on the case of Narmflda Bachao Ando/an 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
E
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
I
the High Court is wholly unsustainable in view of the law
F declared by this Court. There has been no explanation 4.- i.
I
.,r-
whatsoever for an inordinate delay for more than 10 years. The ...
writ petition filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed \

with costs. I
26. The appellant next relied on S.P. Gupta v. President
~
G t-
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
H acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit

1--

,-
LOKPRAKASHAN LTD. v. KANCHANBHAI KANBHAI 799
TADVI AND ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The A
~~}-
Court must not allow its 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
B
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
c
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. D
> ""
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
E
newspaper since 1932 and this Court has clearly upheld the
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.
F

-
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 G
under Article 19(1 )(a) of freedom of speech through publication,
r -f 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.
H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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 bf;!en strictly
-f--
-
complied with. Even the sale deed was also executed long back
B 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.

32. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The
_...
sale of land in favour of the appellant Newspaper, by no stretch
c 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.
~
D 33. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the
impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. In the facts )'., • -4
.,,
and circumstances of this case, we direct the parties are
directed to bear their own costs.

K.K.T. Appeals allowed.
-