Holding

Section 233 of the Gujarat Municipality Act is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 or 19.

Summary

The State of Gujarat, through the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, issued a notice under Section 233 of the Gujarat Municipality Act to evict Patel Bava Karsan from a piece of municipal land on the ground of unauthorized occupation. The respondent challenged the notice invoking Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, arguing that the provision was violative of equality and liberty principles and that the statute lacked a provision for a civil appeal. The Gujarat High Court held Section 233 unconstitutional, relying on an earlier decision. The Supreme Court, however, overruled that view, observing that the classification of government property is reasonable and that the provision does not infringe Articles 14 or 19, as affirmed in Chhaganlal Maganlal and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation cases. It also noted that Section 236 provides a specific right of appeal to the Government, satisfying due‑process requirements. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and affirmed the eviction order.

Issues considered

Whether Section 233 of the Gujarat Municipality Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Section 233 of the Gujarat Municipality Act violates Article 19 of the Constitution.
Whether the absence of a provision for a civil appeal renders the statute unconstitutional.

Legislation cited

Gujarat Municipality Acts. 233, s. 236

Subjects

Constitutional lawArticle 14Article 19municipal propertyevictionequalityright to appealGujarat Municipality Act

Judgment

108'7

STATE OF GUJARAT A
v.
; I
PATEL BAVA KARSAN & ORS.
February 22, 1980
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P, S, KAILASAM AND AD. KosHAL, JJ.] B
• Constitution of India 1950, Artich'.~ 14 and 19 & Gujarat Ji,funicipality Act
Sections 233 llltd 236-Statute empowering eviction from municipal pre1nises-
An appeal to go1·ernment against the order of eviction provided-Constitutional
validity of prorisfons.

Section 233 of the Gujarat Municipality Act 'empowered the Chief Officer
of the ~iunicip[l.fity to evict persons from municipal premises.
c
Respondent No. 1 in the appeals was required by a notice in pur8uance uf
the provisions of section 233(1) of the Act to hand OVer possession of a piece
of land to the J\iunicipality on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupa~
tion thereof\ The respondent assailed the notice· in proceedings under Ar_tic.l'e
226 of the Constitution, and the only point in controversy was '\vhether or not D
' section 233 of ihe Act under which the proceedings for eviction were taken wa~
oonstitutional!y v&lid. The High Court in view of a previous decision of that
court held th<1t section 233 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution wa~
• · ultra vires.
In th~ appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of th'e respondents :
(1) that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's case was not correctly decided
because though in Chhaganlal Maganlal's case there was a right to appe::il t0 E
a Civi1 Court and the right to take evidence was given by the Statute concerned,
in the former. the relevant statute contained no such provisions, and (2) that
the provisions of the Gujarat Act were violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Allowing the appeals,
HEtD: (l)(i) The judgment of the High Court is set aside a.nd the order F
of the Chief Officer dated 9-3-66 affirmed, [l090G]

(ii) Jn the case of Northern Indian Catererl Private Limited v. State of
Punjab and others. [1967] 3 SCR, 399, this Court while considering a statute
\vhos'e provisions \Vere almost similar to those of section 233 of the Gujarat Act
took the same vie\V .as the High Court and struck down the Statute. This decision
held the field until it \\'as ultimately overruled in the case of ChhaRanlal Magan- G
la/, [1975] 1 SCR l. In a later decision in Ahmedabad Municipal (,'orporatiun
and others v. Ra1nan Lal Govi11d Ram am! others, [1975] 3 SCR 935, this Court
Ii'- while fo11owing the case of Chhaganlal Magan/al upheld a provision of the
Bomb&y Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1963
\Vhich was in pari mnteria \Vith section 233 of the Gujnraf Act. [1090A-C]
(iii) Once the property belonging to the Gov~rnment or semi-Government
bodies is held to fall within a particular class and therefore a reasonable classi- H
fication, \Vhether a civil rem'edy is given or not would not be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution, [10900-F]
15-138SCI/80
1088 SUPREME COURT IiEPORTS [1980) 2 S.C.R..

A (iv) Under St:ction 236, the respondents have a right to file· an appeal to the
Government against the impugned order of eviction. ·rhis section also contains
a specific p:-ovision under v.hich the delay can be condoned if sufficient cau1e I ,
is shown to the sutisfaction of the appellate authority nan1ely th'e Governnt:!nt.
It will be open to the respondents to file an appeal which \v'ill be di.;;posed ot by
the Government in accordance v1ith lrnv. [10900-H, 1091A]
(2) The contention that the provisions of the Gujarat Act v.rere violative
B of .Article 19 of the Constitution was expressly considered and negatived in •
Af1111edabad .\1unicipa/ Corpnro!ion & ors. v. Rl1111anlal Govindara1n & Ors.
[1090E-FJ

CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTJON : Civil Appeal Nos. 1596 and
1224 of 1970.
c From the Judgment and Order dated 31-1-1970 of the Gujarat
High Court in SCA No. 438/66.
T. U. Mehta, D. N. Mishra and K. J. John for the appellant
CA 1224/70 & RR. 1596/70. .
S. C. Patel and M. N. Shrvfj for the Appellant CA No. 1596/70.
D M. K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar for Respondent No. 1 CA
l'lo. 1224/70.
S. C. Patel and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No. 2 CA No. 1224/
70.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against a
E
judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 31-1-1970 issuing a writ of
mandamus to the Rajkot Municipality directing it to desist from
enforcing a notice dated 9-3-1966 served on respondent No. 1 and
requiring him in pursuance of the provisions of s. 233 (1) of t11e Gujarat
Municipality Act (hereinafter referred to as the Gujarat Act') to hand
F over possession of a piece of land to the Municipality on the ground
that he was in unauthorised occupation thereof. The only point in
controversy before the High Court was as to whether or not s. 233 of
the Gu_jarat Act, under which the proceedings for eviction of the res-
pondent No. 1 were taken, was constitutionally valid. The High Court
in view of a previous decision of that Court held that s. 233 being
G violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India was ultra vires. The
appellants applied for certificate for leave to appeal under Art. 133(1)-
( c) which was granted; hence this appeal. ·
Section 233 of the Gujarat ~ct runs thus : -
"233. Power to evict certain persons from mzmicipal
H premises. (1) If the Chief Officer is satisfied-
( a) that the person authorised to occupy any premises
belonging to the municipality (hereinafter referred to
GUJARAT v. PATEL BAVA KARSAN (Fazal Ali,!.) I 089

as "the municipal premises") as a tenant or other-
wise has-
(i) not .paid rent lawfully due from in respect of
such premises for a period of more than two
months, or
• (ii) sub-let, without the perm1ss1on of the mumc1-
B
pality, the whole or any part of such premises,
or

(iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the
terms, express or implied, under which he is c
authorised to occupy such premises, or

(b) that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any
municipal premises,
'
D
the Chief Officer may, notwithstandig anything contained in
• any law for the time being in force, by notice ~ervcd (i) by
post or (ii) by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some
other conspicuous part of such premises, or (iii) in such
other manner as may be provided in the rules made by the
State Government order that the person as well as any E
at.her person who may be in occupation of the whole or any
part of the premises, shall vacate them within one month of
the date of the service of the notice.

(2) Before an order under sub-section (1) is made
F
against any person the Chief Officer shall inform the person
by notice in writing of the grounds on which the proposed

. order is to he made and give him a reasonable opportunity
of tendering an explanation and producing evidence, if any,
and to show cause why such order should not be made, with-
in a period to be specified in such notice. If such person
makes an application to the chief officer for extension of the
period specified in the notice the chief officer may grant the
. same on such terms as to payment and recovery of the amount
claimed in the notice as it deems fit. Any written statement
put in by such person and documents produced in pursuance
of such notice shall be filed with the record of the case und H
such person shall be entitled to appear before the authority
proceeding in this connection by advocate, attorney or
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1930] 2 s.c.a.

pleader. Such notice in writing shall be served in the manner
provided for service of notice under sub-section (1).
,.
It appears that in the case of Northern India Caterers Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. v. State of Pun;ab & Anr.(1) this Court while construina a statutG
~

l'l whose provisions were almost similar to those of s. 233 of the Gujarat •
Act took the same view as the High Court and struck down the statute.
This decision held the field until it was ultimately overruled in the case
of Chhagan!al Maganlal( 2 ).

In a later decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v_ -
c Ramanlal Govindram & Ors. ( 3 ) this Court while following the case
of Chhaganlal Maganlal upheld a provision of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1963 which was
in pari materia with s. 233 of the Gujarat Act. Mr. M. K. Rama-
murthi appearing for the respondents submitted that Ahmedabad Muni-
cipal Corporation's case (supra) was not correctly decided because ,
D though in Chhaganlal Magan/al's case (supra) there was a right to
appeal tc a Civil Court and the right to take evidence was given by
the statute concerned, in the former, the relevant statute contained no
such provision. This contention does not appear to be well-founded

E
because once property belonging to the Government or semi-Govern-
ment bodies is held to fall within a particular class and therefore a
reasonable classification, whether a civil remedy is given or not would
. -

not be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution on the broad principle
laid down in Chhaganlal Maganlal's case.
It was also argued that the provisions of the Gujarat Act were
violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution of India. This contention
was expressly considered and negatived by this Court in Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Raman/al Govindram & Ors.
(supra) with which we find ourselves in complete agreement. We,
therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High ..
Court and affirm the order of the Chief Officer dated 9-3-1966.
G
We might, however, observe that under section 236 of the Guja-
rat, Act, the respondents have a right to file an appeal to the Gov-
ernment against the impugned order of eviction. This section ~lso
contains a specific provision under which delay can be condoned if
sufficient cause is shown to the satisfaction of the appellate autho-
H (1) [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399.
(2) [1975] 1 S.C.R. I.
(3) [1975] 3. S.C.R. 935.
GUJARAT v. PATEL BAVA KARSAN (Fazal Ali, J.) 1091

rity namely the Government. In these circumstances, it will be open A
to the respondents to file an appeal to the Government against the
order of eviction passed by the Chief Officer which will be disposed
of by the Government in accordance with the law.

• There will be no order as to costs .
B
N.KA. Appeals allowed.

'

•

~.
/