1 A situate in Mcleod Street, Calcutta.
41 1 0 and 4111 /64 K. Chatterjee, G. S. Chatterjee and D. P. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
The respondents in each case dissented from the assessment made on them and the matter was thereupon referred for determination by arbitrators as companytemplated under sub section 4 of section 78 B. The arbitrators were appointed according to the procedure set out in section 78C and after hearing the parties, the arbitrators made their award on 23rd September, 1964 determining the betterment fee payable in the case of Lower Circular Road property at Rs.
2156 of 1969 and that case bad already been heard by another Division Bench of the High Court and was pending for judgment.
4,241/ .
2,15,441/ in the case of the Lower Circular Road property and at Rs.
From the judgment and order dated 1 12 1972 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule Nos.
The respondents submitted their objections against the Street Scheme on 7th December, 1954 but tile Board, after nearing the respondents, rejected the objections and applied to the State Government for sanction under section 47 and the Street Scheme was ultimately sanctioned by the State Government under section 48 on 17th December, 1956.
2156 of 1969 but it appears that the Division Bench which beard that case did number pronounce upon the companystitutional validity of section 78A and disposed of that case on other grounds.
The board was of the opinion that as a result of the making of the Street Scheme, lands of the respondents which were companyprised in the Street Scheme would increase in value, and the Street Scheme, therefore, companytained a declaration that a betterment fee shall be payable by the respondents in respect of the increase in the value of their respective lands resulting from the execution of the Street Scheme.
The numberice companytaining the requisite particulars was published by the Board on 24th November, 1954 as required by section 43.
35 situate at Lower Circular Road, Calcutta while the respondents in Civil Appeal No.
579 580 of 1976.
do number know when the judgment was delivered in Civil Rule No.
1,25,000/ and in the case of Mcleod Street property at Rs.
4,241/ in the case of Mcleod Street property and numberice of this assessment was given to the respondents.
The Board gave numberice of the proposed assessment of the betterment fee to the respondents under sub section 1 of section 7 8 B and then proceeded under subsection 2 of that section to assess the betterment fee payable by the respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appear Nos.
In or about November 1954.
Though the writ petitions were filed as far back as 1964 immediately after making of the Award by the Arbitrators, they unfortunately companyld number reach hearing before the High Court until July 1971 and then also, the hearing took companysiderable time and it companycluded only on 17th August,, 1971 It appears that during the bearing of the writ petitions, it was brought to the numberice of the High Court that the question as to the companystitutional validity of section 78A of the Act was also raised in another case, namely, Civil Rules No.
the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta hereinafter referred to as the Board acting in exercise of the power companyferred under section 39, clause c , passed the necessary resolution and proceeded to frame a Street Scheme for the area which included Fire Lane as also the buildings belonging to the respondents.
The respondents thereupon filed a writ petition in each case challenging the validity of the award made by the arbitrators.
579 of 1976 are the owners of a building bearing No.
The principal ground on which the validity of the award of the arbitrators was impugned in the writ petitions was that section 78A to section 78G of the Act were ultra vires and void and rules 1 1 to 21 of the Rules were also invalid.
The companyrectness of this judgment is impugned in the present appeals preferred by the trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta after obtaining certificate from the High Court.
The High Court, therefore, decided to bold back the preparation of the judg ment in the writ petitions and to await the judgment of the other Division Bench in Civil Rule No.
The betterment fee was assessed at Rs.
580 of 1976 are owners of a building bearing No.
There was a street knows as Fire Lane companynecting the Lower Circular Road on the cast to Mcleod Street on the West.
There were also certain other subsidiary grounds taken in the writ petitions but they have number formed the subject matter of debate before us and hence we need number refer to them.
K. Mukherjee, for respondents in CA No.
The respondents in Civil Appeal No,.
2156 of 1969.
580/76.
579/76 and RR 1 a to 1 1 , 3 and 4 in CA No.
The facts giving rise to the appeals lie in a very narrow companypass and may be briefly stated as follows.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWANTI, J., These appeals by certificate are directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court striking down section 78 B to section 78 G of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 as invalid on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power as also companytravention of Article 14 of the Constitution and declaring rules 11 to 21 of the Rules framed by the Government under sub section 3a of section 137 as ultra vires the provisions of the Act.
