MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. (EAST-I) versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA AND ORS. on 28 April 2022

[2022] 16 S.C.R. 1045

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. (EAST-I)

v.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BIHANMUMBAIMAHANAGARPALIKA AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 6745 of 2009)

APRIL 28, 2022

[K.M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Municipalities – Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 –ss. 297, 299 and 301 – Powers of the municipal body to maintainregular street line – Road line was fixed by the MunicipalCorporation long back in the year 1988 by following procedure u/s.297 – Subsequently, Respondents served Notice dated 27.09.2006upon appellant u/s.299 for taking possession of land – Anothernotice served on 01.03.2008 calling upon the appellant to surrenderland as demanded in the previous notice – Appellant approachedHigh Court for quashing and setting aside the said two noticesdated 27.09.2006 and 01.03.2008 – High Court rejected the writpetition – Appellant raised various contentions before SupremeCourt, firstly, no compensation was awarded in respect of earliersurrender of land when land was handed for fixation of road linein 1988; secondly, impugned notices were unsustainable in termsof s.299(2) as sanction was not obtained from Central Governmentbefore issuing notice; thirdly, procedure contemplated u/s.297(1),viz.issuance of public notice for fixation of road line was not carriedout; and lastly, representation / objections of the appellant werenot considered – Held: Not much material to show that appellanthad been pursuing the issue relating to non-payment ofcompensation for the earlier surrender of land – Appellant cannotnow introduce said aspect for purpose of impugning the notices inquestion – Sanction u/s.299 is required only against takingpossession of the land and building vested in a corporationconstituted by law – Appellant was incorporated as a public limitedcompany and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 – Thiscannot make it a corporation established by the law – So far asprocedure contemplated u/s.297 is concerned, the High Court

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Aapparently was seized of the said aspect as it found that regularline was fixed in the year 1988 by following the procedure –Appellant did surrender land based on the earlier demand and therewas no case at that stage that the regular line was fixed withoutconforming to the mandate of s.297 – Also, the appellant does nothave a case that after the fixation of the regular line in the yearB1988 as found by the High Court, there was a variation or changein the regular line and the same forms the basis for the impugnednotices in the present case – Though appellant contended that therewere vital installations and any interference with the same wouldprejudice the rights of many subscribers, besides interrupting theCoperations of the appellant, however, the issue raised relates topowers of the municipal body to maintain the regular street linewhich, in turn, is put in place to secure the highest public interest –This was thus an action on the part of the respondents which cannotbe interfered with lightly – Public interest.

DDismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1 As regards the question regarding the paymentof compensation in regard to earlier surrender of land, theappellant cannot introduce the said aspect for the purpose ofimpugning the notices in question. However, in case, the appellantEhas not been paid the compensation already due to it for theearlier surrender of 387.5 square meters area and if the appellanthas already not made any application under Section 301 of theBombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, if the appellant makesan application within a period of one month from today, the saidapplication will be processed and taken to its logical conclusionFin this regard. [Paras 9, 15][1053-F; 1059-E-F]

1.2. A perusal of Section 299 of the Bombay MunicipalCorporation Act would show that what the provison provides canbe stated as follows: If the land which is what is referred to in subsection (1) is not vested in the corporation and it is falls withinGthe regular line and there is no building thereon, then possessioncan be taken as provided in sub section (1) without the previoussanction of the Government. Under the proviso, if the land orbuilding is vested in the government then previous sanction of H

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. (EAST-I) v. ASSTT. COMMNR.BIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA

the government is necessary. It is not the appellant’s case thatthere is a building. Also, the case of the appellant is that the landvests in the appellant. Appellant is a separate body and capableof owning the property. The second limb of the proviso dealswith the situation where the land or building is vested in anycorporation constituted by Royal Charter or by an Act ofParliament of the United Kingdom. That certainly is not the caseof the appellant. However, possibly the case of the appellant canbe that the appellant is a corporation constituted by an Indianlaw. If this is the case, where in other words, the appellant is acorporation constituted by an Indian law, which no doubt takes ina law made by Parliament, then indeed possession cannot be takenunder section 299(1) without the previous sanction of the StateGovernment. However, the appellant cannot be permitted to takeshelter of this limb as well. This is for the reason that the embargois only against taking possession of the land and building vestedin a corporation which is constituted by an Indian law. There is aworld of difference between a corporate body owing its birth to alaw and a body corporate which is created under the law. In fact,the appellant was incorporated as a public limited company andregistered under the Companies Act 1956. This cannot make it acorporation which is established by the law. [Para 11][1055-B-G]

1.3. In the fixation of the regular line of the street withinthe meaning of Section 297 there was a prescription of the mandatein Section 297 (1)(b) to give public notice and a hearing. Theimpugned judgment reflects that the High Court apparently wasseized of the said aspect as it has found that the regular line wasfixed in the year 1988 by following the procedure. Also, theappellant did surrender land consisting of 387.5 square metersbased on the earlier demand and there was no case at that stagethat the regular line was fixed without conforming to the mandateof Section 297. Further, the appellant does not have a case thatafter the fixation of the regular line in the year 1988 as found bythe High Court, there was a variation or change in the regularline and the same forms the basis for the impugned notices in thepresent case [Para 12][1057-C-D; 1058-B]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A1.4. The issue raised in this case relates to the powers ofthe municipal body to maintain the regular street line which, inturn, is put in place to secure the highest public interest. Thecity in question viz., Mumbai has been plagued with the problemof traffic jams leading to serious inroads into public interest undervarious heads. The common man is the most adversely affectedBin particular, if there is no respect paid to the regular line of thestreet. Therefore, this is an action on the part of the respondentwhich cannot be interfered with lightly. [Para 13][1058-D-E]

1.5. The appellant would point out that there is a structurewithin the meaning of Section 299(1) and it should be an obstacleCfor the impugned order to be passed. This argument again maynot succeed. What Section 299(1) contemplates is a foundationaltest for taking over the land which is - if the land, not vesting inthe corporation, whether open or enclosed, lies within the regularline of public street and is not occupied by a building. This is oneDpart of Section 299. Therefore, the embargo is against invokingSection 299 in the situation where the land is occupied by abuilding. [Para 14][1058-G-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6745of 2009.

E

From the final Order dated 25.06.2008 of the High Court ofJudicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.791 of 2008.

Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Advs. for theAppellant.Atul Y. Chitale, Ms. Tanvi Kakar, Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Advs.Ffor the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. M. JOSEPH, J.

1. The appellant challenges the judgment of the Division BenchGof the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 791 of 2008 filed by it.The relief sought by the appellant is as follows:

“a) that this Hon’ble court may issue writ of certiorarior any other order, or direction writ, in the nature of writ ofcertiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for H

quashing and setting aside the said impugned Notices dated27.9.2006 and 01.03.2008 issued by the Respondents underSection 299 and 488 of the Mumbai Municipal CorporationAct, 1888.”

2. Having regard to the nature of the order passed viz., essentiallyits length, we deem it apposite to refer to it:

“Heard.

2. The road line was fixed by the Municipal Corporationlong back in the year 1988 by following the procedure undersection 297 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.Therefore, now the respondents have taken action undersection 299 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, fortaking possession of the land.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that thepetitioner has already surrendered a portion of its land.However, the submission of the learned counsel for theMunicipal Corporation, that it was for road widening. Nowthe land is being taken for curvature of VN Purav Margand RC Marg.

4. We find that the Bombay Municipal Corporation hastaken the right action. No interference is called for therein.

5. The writ petition is rejected.”

3. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior advocate, andalso Ms. Rashmi Malhotra learned counsel, appearing on behalf of theappellant, as also, Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned senior counsel on behalfof the respondent.

4. Before we refer to the submissions of the parties, we may setout the facts as are necessary.

5. The predecessor in interest of the appellant viz., BombayTelephones, received notice dated 14.03.1986 calling upon it to handover the open set back land at Chembur Telephone Exchange Buildingfor road widening purposes. There is a reference to detailedcorrespondence for some time and finally 387.5 square meters of areacame to be surrendered. Nearly a decade thereafter, the appellant wasserved with notice dated 27.09.2006 under Section 299 of the Bombay A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

AMunicipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ forbrevity). The said notice was for fresh proceedings for taking possessionof land, admeasuring 308.37 square meters forming part of plot bearingCTS 1666 of Village Chembur, under Section 299 of the Act. The appellantreplied by notice dated 17.11.2006. We may set out the terms of thenotice:B

“This has reference to the meeting held with you and ourED, (CGM (D), MTNL – Mumbai alongwith other seniorOfficers of MTNL, Mumbai on 16.11.2006 in Chembur onthe subject mentioned above. In the above matter, it ismentioned that we have received your Notice dated27.9.2006 issued under section 299 of the Mumbai MunicipalCorporation Act 1888, You are also aware that the said noticeis replied to, by our Deputy General Manager (Chambur)vide his letter dated 4.11.2006 by General Manager (East-I) vide his letter dated 20-10-2006. You are also aware thatExecutive Director of MTNL, vide his letter dated30.10.2006 (copy enclosed) has requested MunicipalCommissioner of MMC to re-examine the issue of yourNotice dated 27.9.2006.

C

D

You will appreciate that as per the provisionsof clause 2 of the section 299 of the said Act.

E

The said clause 2 of section 299 of MMC Act,1888 reads as follows:

“Provided that when the land or building, is vested inthe (Government) possession shall not be taken asaforesaid without the previous Sanction of theGovernment concerned and when, the land or buildingis vested in any corporation constituted by RoyalCharter or by an act of Parliament, (of the UnitedKingdom), or (by an Indian law) possession shall notbe taken as aforesaid without the previous sanctionof (the State) Government”.

F

G

Please note that MTNL, is a CentralGovernment established under the provisions of Section 4of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Considering the statusof MTNL, being Central Government Corporation H

established under the law, you are not entitled to take thepossession of the land or building vested in the Governmentwithout the previous sanction of the Government concernedi.e. Central Government, Ministry of Telecommunications.

It is further mentioned that the ChemburTelephone Exchange is serving more than 50,000 telephoneconnections and also that the set back land as required byalready surrendered in the year 1995 as agreed with theBMC and accordingly the compound wall was shifted andre-constructed with minimum utility space for entry of theoperational vehicles and security measures.

In view of the above and as discussed in theaforesaid meeting held at the site in Chembur, you arerequested to ….. the whole issue and reconsider the issueof surrender of any further set back land by MTNL as thespread land had already been surrendered by MTNL in theyear 1995.”

It is followed up by another communication dated 15.01.2008.We may again refer to the same:

“Asstt Commissioner M/West, BMC vide letter underreference has given notice for demolishing the boundarywall of Chembur Telephone Exchange latest by 15.01.2008on failure of which as intimated by him, the same will bedemolished by BMC on its own. In this connection, yourattention is drawn to the following points

1) You will appreciate that the said installation underconsideration is very important part of MTNL Mumbainetwork for telecommunication. In fact, ChemburTelephone Exchange has been identified as “vital installation”by Government of India and hence very important fromnational security point of view. Activities here are monitoredby security agencies from time to time.

2. MTNL is a Central Government Corporation establishedunder the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian TelegraphAct, 1885 and possession of the land and building or part A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

thereof belonging to MTNL cannot be taken without priorsanction of the Government concerned i.e. CentralGovernment.

A

3) It may be noted that Chembur Telephone Exchange isserving about 40,000 customers and any disorder will affectbadly the service to these esteemed customers.

B

4) Too much proximity of the exchange equipments nearthe main road will subject these to continuous vibration/mechanical shock due to continuous movement of heavyvehicles on the road and will lead to their malfunctioning.

C

5) This being a technical building minimum vacant space inthe campus is required for loading and unloading ofequipments. Also, at such impotent technical installationswe require to keep sufficient vacant space for movementof fire brigade in case of fire hazards.

D

6) The set back land as agreed by BMC was surrenderedby MTNL in 1995 and accordingly the compound wall wasconstructed. At present there is shortage of utility spaceavailable in the said exchange campus. Any furtherreduction will adversely affect the working of the exchangeas mentioned above.

E

In view of the above, you are requested to withdraw theclaim for the said land and hence the notice underreference.”

It is thereafter that the notice dated 01.03.2008 was issued, callingFupon the appellant to surrender the land as demanded in the notice dated27.09.2006. It is this notice which is impugned along with the noticedated 01.03.2008.

6. We have noticed all the facts and we have also referred to theimpugned judgment.G

7. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior advocate for the appellant,makes the following submissions. Firstly, it is contended that there wasno compensation given by the respondents in respect of the earliersurrender effected by the appellant of 387.5 square meters. Secondly, it H

is contended that having regard to Section 299 of the Act, the impugnednotices are unsustainable. According to the appellant, this is for the reasonthat in terms of Section 299(2), sanction has not been obtained from theCentral Government before issuing the notice. It is further contendedthat there is a breach of Section 297 of the Act as the procedurecontemplated under Section 297(1)(b) viz., issuance of a public noticefor fixation of the road line was not carried out. Lastly, it is pointed outthat the representation, or the objections of the appellant, was notconsidered.

We must also notice that the learned senior counsel would pointout that there are important installations on the land in question whichare vital for the effective functioning of the appellant-Corporation whichcaters to as many as 4000 subscribers.

8. Per contra, Shri Atul Y. Chitale, learned senior counsel for therespondents, would submit that the issue relating to the payment ofcompensation for the earlier surrender does not form the subject matterof the present writ petition. It is further submitted that under Section301 of the Act, there is a procedure for the payment of compensation. Itentails the filing of an application and the processing of the same andpayment of compensation in terms thereof. As far as the violation ofSection 299 for the absence of a sanction under Section 299(2) isconcerned, it is pointed out that the appellant is not a statutory corporation.In regard to the third submission viz., that the fixation of the regular lineof the street is violative of Section 297, the High Court by the impugnedjudgment has found that the line was fixed in the year 1988 after followingthe procedure.

9. As regards the question regarding the payment of compensationin regard to the surrender of 387.5 square meters in the year 1995-1996,we have noticed the relief which has been sought in the writ petition.We do not think that the appellant can introduce the said aspect for thepurpose of impugning the notices in question. If the appellant hasgrievance in regard to the non-payment of compensation, and we mustnotice that there is not much material to show that the appellant hasbeen pursuing the same, we cannot allow the notices, if they are otherwisefound legal, to be impugned.

10. Regarding the second contention viz., violation of Section 299,that is with regard to whether there was no sanction from the Central A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AGovernment, it becomes necessary to refer to Section 299. Section 299of the Act reads as follows:

299. Acquisition of open land or of land occupied byplatforms, etc. within the regular line of a street.

(1) If any land not vesting in the corporation, whether openor enclosed, lies within the regular line of a public street,and is not occupied by a building, or if a platform, verandah,step or some other structure external to a building abuttingon a public street, or a portion of a platform, verandah, stepor other such structure, is within the regular line of suchstreet, the Commissioner may, after giving to the owner ofthe land or building not less than seven clear days writtennotice of his intention so to do, take possession on behalf ofthe corporation of the said land with its enclosing wall, hedgeor fence, if any, or of the said platform, verandah, step orother such structure as aforesaid, or of the portion of thesaid platform, verandah, step or other such structureaforesaid which is within the regular line of the street, and,if necessary, clear the same and the land so acquired shallthenceforward be deemed a part of the public street.

B

C

D

Explanation. - For the purposes of acquisition of openland lying within the regular line of a public street, and notoccupied by a building constructed before the 25[th] March,1991 and occupied without obtaining the permission tooccupy the building from the Commissioner under section353A, ‘owner’ of the said land or building means a co-operative housing society or a federation of co-operativehousing societies registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 or any condominium or acompany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 withlimited liability or an association of person or any ad hocbody formed by the occupants of the building.

E

F

G

(2) Provided that, when the land or building is vested in [theGovernment possession shall not be taken as aforesaidwithout the previous sanction of the Government concernedand, when the land or building is vested] in any corporationconstituted by Royal Charter or by an Act of Parliament, H

[of the United Kingdom] or [by an Indian Law], possessionshall not be taken as aforesaid without the previous sanctionof [the State Government].

11. A perusal of Section 299 would show that what the provisonprovides can be stated as follows:

If the land which is what is referred to in sub section (1) is notvested in the corporation and it is falls within the regular line and there isno building thereon, then possession can be taken as provided in subsection (1) without the previous sanction of the Government. Under theproviso, if the land or building is vested in the government then previoussanction of the government is necessary. It is not the appellant’s casethat there is a building. Also, the case of the appellant is that the landvests in the appellant. Appellant is a separate body and capable of owningthe property. In fact, the learned senior counsel for the respondent wouldpoint out that the appellant is regarded as the owner in the propertycard. The second limb of the proviso deals with the situation where theland or building is vested in any corporation constituted by Royal Charteror by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. That certainly is notthe case of the appellant. However, possibly the case of the appellantcan be that the appellant is a corporation constituted by an Indian law. Ifthis is the case, where in other words, the appellant is a corporationconstituted by an Indian law, which no doubt takes in a law made byParliament, then indeed possession cannot be taken under section 299(1)without the previous sanction of the State Government. We are afraidthat the appellant cannot be permitted to take shelter of this limb as well.This is for the reason that the embargo is only against taking possessionof the land and building vested in a corporation which is constituted byan Indian law. There is a world of difference between a corporate bodyowing its birth to a law and a body corporate which is created under thelaw. In fact, we notice from the statements in the special leave petitionmade by the appellant that the appellant was incorporated as a publiclimited company and registered under the Companies Act 1956. Thiscannot make it a corporation which is established by the law. Thisdistinction is far too well known to require any reiteration with referenceto case law.

12. As regards the third point, viz., that in the fixation of the regularline of the street within the meaning of Section 297 there was a A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aprescription of the mandate in Section 297 (1)(b) to give public noticeand a hearing, we may advert to Section 297:

297. Prescribing the regular line of a street.

(1) The Commissioner may: —

(a) prescribe a line on each side of any public street:

B

[Provided that in the case of any public street in the suburbsthe regular line of a public street operative under any streetoperative under any law in force in any part of the suburbson the day immediately preceding the date of coming intoforce of the Bombay Municipal (Extension of Limits) Act,1950, [and in the case of any public street in the extendedsuburbs the regular line of a public street operative underany part of the extended suburbs on the day immediatelypreceding the date of the coming into force of the BombayMunicipal [Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA(Amendment)] Act, 1956] shall be deemed to be a lineprescribed by the Commissioner under this clause.]

C

D

(b) from time to time, but subject in each case to his receivingthe authority of the corporation in that behalf, prescribe afresh line in substitution for any line so prescribed, or forany part thereof provided that such authority shall not beaccorded—

E

(i) unless, at least one month before the meeting of thecorporation at which the matter is decided, public notice ofthe proposal has been given by the Commissioner byadvertisement in local newspapers as well as in the [OfficialGazette], and special notice thereof, signed by theCommissioner, has also been put up in the street or part ofthe street for which such fresh line is proposed to beprescribed, and F

(ii) until the corporation have considered all objections tothe said proposal made in writing and delivered at the officeof the municipal secretary not less than three clear daysbefore the day of such meeting.

G

(2) The line for the time being prescribed shall be called‘the regular line of the street’.

H

(3) No person shall construct any portion of any buildingwithin the regular line of the street except with the writtenpermission of the Commissioner, who shall, in every case inwhich he gives such permission, at the same time report hisreasons in writing to the [Standing Committee].

It is no doubt true that the law commands that a public notice is tobe given before the regular line of street is fixed. In fact, it is of greatestimportance that the requirement in this regard be followed. This is forthe reason that it brings about serious consequences for persons whowould be affected in future by the fixation of the regular line of a street.In fact, invocation of the power under Section 299 is based on theexistence of a regular line in a street. However, we must notice that theimpugned judgment reflects that the High Court apparently was seizedof the said aspect as it has found that the regular line was fixed in theyear 1988 by following the procedure. We must at this point also bear inmind the fact that the appellant did surrender land consisting of 387.5square meters based on the earlier demand and there was no case atthat stage that the regular line was fixed without conforming to themandate of Section 297. It is true that there is a ground taken in the writpetition and even in the special leave petition that Section 297 was not assuch followed. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the HighCourt is not placed before us. No doubt, in the counter affidavit filed inthis Court, there is no reference to this aspect. In the counter affidavitfiled before this Court by the respondent, it has been, inter alia, statedas follows:

4. I state that the open set back land of other property ownersalso taken over under Section 299 of the Mumbai MunicipalCorporation Act, 1888 and the land owners are entitled forcompensation in terms of F.S.I. or T.D.R. as per the policycircular of these Respondents. I therefore, state and submitthat as the adjoining setback land is already handed overand developed by these respondents, and only the road atpetitioners’ property could not be developed as the petitionerobjected to the same. Hence these Respondents could notcomplete the work of road widening and the said road couldnot be put for public use at large. I therefore, state andsubmit that in the interest of public at large the petitioner bedirected to handover the open set back to the respondent to A

D

E

F

G

H

Aenable the respondents to complete the project at the earliest.I therefore submit that the Special Leave Petition is devoidof any merits and the same be dismissed in the interest ofpublic at large.”

However, the appellant does not have a case that after the fixationBof the regular line in the year 1988 as found by the High Court, therewas a variation or change in the regular line and the same forms thebasis for the impugned notices in the present case and we would thereforethink that we cannot permit the appellant to succeed on the said point.

13. Lastly, it is contended that there has been no consideration ofCthe objections of the appellant. It is pointed out that the appellant hadcontended that there are vital installations and any interference with thesame would prejudice the rights of many subscribers, besides interruptingthe operations of the appellant. We must in this context bear in mindthat the issue raised in this case relates to the powers of the municipalbody to maintain the regular street line which, in turn, is put in place toDsecure the highest public interest. The city with which we are dealingwith viz., Mumbai has been plagued with the problem of traffic jamsleading to serious inroads into public interest under various heads. Thecommon man is the most adversely affected in particular, if there is norespect paid to the regular line of the street. Therefore, this is an actionEon the part of the respondent which we cannot interfere with lightly.The area in question appears to be a junction viz., Chembur junctionwhich appears to be in particular congested. In fact, the respondent hasa case that to some extent they have been able to clear the road. Theyhave also a case that even in regard to the Indian Navy, land has beentaken over and they wish to have a policy which will not discriminate onFany basis.

14. The argument which we must notice is that the appellant wouldpoint out that there is a structure within the meaning of Section 299(1)and it should be an obstacle for the impugned order to be passed. Wemust point out that this argument again may not succeed. What SectionG299(1) contemplates is a foundational test for taking over the land whichis - if the land, not vesting in the corporation, whether open or enclosed,lies within the regular line of public street and is not occupied by a building.This is one part of Section 299. Therefore, the embargo is againstinvoking Section 299 in the situation where the land is occupied by aHbuilding. This is subject to the proviso which we have adverted to. It is not the case of the appellant that the land with which we are concernedis occupied by a building. However, an attempt is made to contend thatit is the latter part of sub-section (1) which may be attracted. This is forthe reason that the latter limb of sub section (1) declares that if a platform,verandah, step or some other structure external to a building abutting ona public street or a portion of a platform, verandah, step or other suchstructure is within the regular line of such street, the Commissioner maytake action in the manner provided therein. The structures which arereferred to in the aforesaid second limb are structures over which thecorporation is clothed with power in fact to take action. Therefore, wesee no merit in the said argument as well.

15. Having noticed that the appellant has not been able to convincethe Court to interfere with the matter, the impugned judgment is sustained.We are undoubtedly troubled by the fact that the appellant which is alsoa public body has a complaint about compensation due to it for thesurrender of the earlier land not being disbursed. We would think thatthe powers of this Court must be exercised in this regard though it is truethat there is no relief sought as such in the writ petition. Accordingly, wepass the following order:

(a) We dismiss the appeal and confirm the dismissal of thewrit petition filed by the appellant.

(b) However, we direct that in case, the appellant has notbeen paid the compensation already due to it for the earliersurrender of 387.5 square meters area and if the appellanthas already not made any application under Section 301, ifthe appellant makes an application within a period of onemonth from today, the said application will be processedand taken to its logical conclusion in this regard.

The compensation will be processed in accordance with law whichshall be made available to the appellant within a period of four monthsfrom the date of the filing of the application.

No orders as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose and Amarendra Kumar(Assisted by : Pooja Mishra, LCRA)

Appeal dismissed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H