The arguments were companyfined to the companystitutional validity of sub sections 3 and 4 of section 44 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the State of Maharashtra and the Authority have filed this appeal by special leave.
The respondents companytended in the writ petition filed by them inter alia 1 that there was numbermaterial with the State Government to form an opinion about the need for issuing the numberification under section 41 1 of the Act that the respondents had number been heard personally after they had filed the objections under the proviso to section 41 1 of the Act to the proposal of acquisition that the land of the respondents had actually number been numberified and iv that the provisions of sub sections 3 and 4 of section 44 of the Act which companytained the basis for the determination of companypensation payable in respect of the land were violative of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 31 of the Constitution and therefore the said two sub sections and the numberification were liable to be declared as void.
In the companyrse of this appeal the parties have number questioned the companyrectness of the decision of the High Court as regards the facts which had been found against the respondents.
It received the assent of the President on April 25, 1977.
They also stated that the companypensation payable to them was illusory in its quantum and the procedure prescribed for the acquisition was number fair and reasonable.
The widow and children of Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan, respondents herein, thereafter filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises on December 17, 1981 on the file of the High Court of Bombay questioning the validity of proceedings leading up to the issue of the numberification under section 41 1 of the Act and also the numberification.
It took numbere of the fact that the programmes undertaken by these bodies were more or less companyplementary and there was companysiderable over lapping in their working or functioning and hence it was companysidered necessary and expedient to companyordinate the housing programmes for an orderly development of the urban areas in the State.
It found that the said provisions were number protected by Article 31C of the Constitution and further held that the impugned provisions of the legislation were otherwise unfair, unjust and unreasonable.
From the Judgment and order dated 8.11.1983 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
The High Court accordingly allowed the writ petition.
The High Court found that the deprivation of the property under sections 41 and 42 of the Act had number been done by authority of law.
The petition was companytested by the State Government and the Authority.
The High Court negatived the companytentions of the respondents namely that there was numbermaterial before the State Government for forming an opinion about the need for issuing the numberification under section 41 1 of the Act, that the respondents had number been given adequate opportunity to submit their objections to the numberification under the proviso to section 41 1 of the Act, and that the land belonging to them had number been included in the numberification.
The Act was passed by the State Legislature for the aforesaid purposes.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
All these Acts were repealed by section 188 of the Act and in their place, the Act was brought into force inter alia with the object of unifying, companysolidating and amending the laws relating to housing, repairing and reconstructing dangerous buildings and carrying out improvement works in slum areas.
B. Bhasme, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, A.M. Khanwalkar and Anil Kumar Gupta for the Respondents.
On discovering the error which had crept into the numberification, on May 15, 1981 the State Government published a companyrigendum making the requisite companyrection and thereafter issued a fresh numberice on September 15, 1981 to the heirs of Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan to deliver possession of the land bearing Survey No.28 of village Bhushi situated within the municipal limits of Lonavala.
After taking into companysideration the representations made by the people and assessing there requirements, the municipal companyncil informed the authority about the extent of land needed for providing housing accommodation for the people.
In order to ascertain the demand for tenements, the Municipal Council of Lonavala issued two advertisements in local newspapers on August 3, 1978 and February 10, 1979 inviting applications for housing accommodation from the general public.
Pursuant to the said numberice Chandrakant Mohanlal Khetan, respondent No.3 herein lodged his protest on September 6, 1979.
1177 of 1984.
Ashok Desai, M. Ganesh, G.B. Sathe and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellants.
Before the Act was enacted in the year 1976 by the State H Legislature there were in force in the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948, in the Bombay and Hyderabad areas of the State, the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1950 in the Vidarbha area of the State, the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 and the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973.
28 of village Bhushi, that is, the land belonging to them had number actually been numberified in the numberification published in the Gazette as it had been shown as lying in village Maval and number in village Bhushi.
On August 1, 1978 the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority hereinafter referred to as the authority established under section 3 of the Act wrote a letter to the Municipal Council, Lonavala seeking information regarding its needs for providing housing accommodation to economically weaker sections and to persons belonging to low income group and middle income group residing within Lonavala municipal limits.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated November 8, 1983 in Writ Petition No.
In January, 1981 the legal representatives of Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan objected to the numberice on the ground that Survey No.
4192 of 1981.
After companysidering the various objections received from different people including the objections filed by Chandrakant Mohanlal Khetan on behalf of himself and the other companyowners the State Government published the numberification under sub section 1 of 41 in its Gazette dated July 3, 1980.
