# MDNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ,JABALPUR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 135
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-02-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1962
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mdnicipal-corporation-of-the-city-of-jabalpur-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-2658
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

'I
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
135
MDNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF ,JABALPUR
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B.' GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N.
WANOHoo, N. RAJAGOPMA
AYYANGAR and
T. L VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Pleariing-Strict ariherence necessary-A men<lment must
be formally
marie-Petitioner
pleading
tram/er by StaJe
Government --Counsel
for responrient conceriing transfer by
Central Government-Duty of Court.
Acting under s. 38 (l) (f) of the C. P. Municipalities Act
1922, the P1ovincial Government, with
the sanction of the
Government of India, transferred <ertain Nazul Lands to the
Municipal Commit tee to be used for the purposes of a garden •
The l 922 Act was repealed by the City of Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1948, which replaced the Municipiil'Committee by the
Jabalpur Corporation.
Under s. 81 of the Corporation Act
the State Government issued a notification. notifying that a
portion of this land needed for making a road "stood divested
from the Corporation. The Corporation filed a writ petition
before the High Court challenging the notification. On a
concession made by the counsel for the State that the transfer
of the land had been made by the Central Government the
High Court held that the notification could not be sustained
under s, 31 which was applicable only to transfers made by
the State Government
But the High Court sustained the
notification under s, 33 of the repealed 1922 Act, relying upon
the saving ins. 3 ( 1) of the Corporation Act.
Held, that the transfer of the land in fact had been made
by the State (Provincial) Government
and the notification
was fully justified by the provisiom of s. 81 of the Corporation
Act. There was no basis on which the High Court could have
based its assumption
that the transfer
was by the Central
Government. 1'he allegations in the writ petition proceeded
on the basis that the transfer was by the State Government,
On the pleadings the appellant ought not to have been permitted to put forward a case that the State Government was
not the transferor of the property. To confine a party to his
pleadings particulaily in respect of facts, is dictated not merely
by the need for orderliness but for avoiding surprise to the
othn party.
Save in exccptional_cases, parties shauld be hdd
~ strictly to 11th plrad·'.ngs, and if there is need to amend them,
the Court shoulcl insist c,11 fo1mal amu.clments being affected.
AJ'f'il 16.
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
In the present case, on the terms of the order transferring the
land it was clear that the transfer was made by the Provincial
Government.
C!YU. APPELLATE JumsDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 212 of 1962.
Appeal by special-leave from the judgment
and order dated February 3, 1961, of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in M. P. No. 139 of 1960.
N. C. Chatt,erjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for
appellanta.
B. Ben and J. N. Shroff, for respondent No. I.
B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 2.
1962. April 16.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
AYYANGAR, J.-By a communication dated
Afril 5, 1930, from the Secrotary to the Government
o the Central Provinces addressed to the Commissioner Jabalpur Division, certain Nazul land was
made available to tb.e Municipal Committee of
Jabalpur. In this letter the Secretary stated :
"! am directed by the Governor in Coun-
..:il with the previous sanction of tile Government of India to oommunicate the following
orders of the Government of tho Central
Provinoes :-
Under Seotion 38( I )(f) of the Central
Provinoes Municipalities Act, 1~22, Govern·
ment is pleased to transfer to the Munioipal
Committee, Jubbulpore, free of premium and
ground rent nazul land measuring .............. .
of the Jabbulpore town. The land shall vest
in the Municipal Committee subject to the
following conditions :
(1)
The land shall be used only for
the pur pose of a gardfD and no part of it
,
•
•
-
.,
' r
2 s.o.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
13-7
shall be used for a.ny other purpose without the previous sanction of the Local
Governm

## Text

'I
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
135
MDNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF ,JABALPUR
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B.' GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N.
WANOHoo, N. RAJAGOPMA
AYYANGAR and
T. L VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Pleariing-Strict ariherence necessary-A men<lment must
be formally
marie-Petitioner
pleading
tram/er by StaJe
Government --Counsel
for responrient conceriing transfer by
Central Government-Duty of Court.
Acting under s. 38 (l) (f) of the C. P. Municipalities Act
1922, the P1ovincial Government, with
the sanction of the
Government of India, transferred <ertain Nazul Lands to the
Municipal Commit tee to be used for the purposes of a garden •
The l 922 Act was repealed by the City of Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1948, which replaced the Municipiil'Committee by the
Jabalpur Corporation.
Under s. 81 of the Corporation Act
the State Government issued a notification. notifying that a
portion of this land needed for making a road "stood divested
from the Corporation. The Corporation filed a writ petition
before the High Court challenging the notification. On a
concession made by the counsel for the State that the transfer
of the land had been made by the Central Government the
High Court held that the notification could not be sustained
under s, 31 which was applicable only to transfers made by
the State Government
But the High Court sustained the
notification under s, 33 of the repealed 1922 Act, relying upon
the saving ins. 3 ( 1) of the Corporation Act.
Held, that the transfer of the land in fact had been made
by the State (Provincial) Government
and the notification
was fully justified by the provisiom of s. 81 of the Corporation
Act. There was no basis on which the High Court could have
based its assumption
that the transfer
was by the Central
Government. 1'he allegations in the writ petition proceeded
on the basis that the transfer was by the State Government,
On the pleadings the appellant ought not to have been permitted to put forward a case that the State Government was
not the transferor of the property. To confine a party to his
pleadings particulaily in respect of facts, is dictated not merely
by the need for orderliness but for avoiding surprise to the
othn party.
Save in exccptional_cases, parties shauld be hdd
~ strictly to 11th plrad·'.ngs, and if there is need to amend them,
the Court shoulcl insist c,11 fo1mal amu.clments being affected.
AJ'f'il 16.
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
In the present case, on the terms of the order transferring the
land it was clear that the transfer was made by the Provincial
Government.
C!YU. APPELLATE JumsDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 212 of 1962.
Appeal by special-leave from the judgment
and order dated February 3, 1961, of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in M. P. No. 139 of 1960.
N. C. Chatt,erjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for
appellanta.
B. Ben and J. N. Shroff, for respondent No. I.
B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 2.
1962. April 16.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
AYYANGAR, J.-By a communication dated
Afril 5, 1930, from the Secrotary to the Government
o the Central Provinces addressed to the Commissioner Jabalpur Division, certain Nazul land was
made available to tb.e Municipal Committee of
Jabalpur. In this letter the Secretary stated :
"! am directed by the Governor in Coun-
..:il with the previous sanction of tile Government of India to oommunicate the following
orders of the Government of tho Central
Provinoes :-
Under Seotion 38( I )(f) of the Central
Provinoes Municipalities Act, 1~22, Govern·
ment is pleased to transfer to the Munioipal
Committee, Jubbulpore, free of premium and
ground rent nazul land measuring .............. .
of the Jabbulpore town. The land shall vest
in the Municipal Committee subject to the
following conditions :
(1)
The land shall be used only for
the pur pose of a gardfD and no part of it
,
•
•
-
.,
' r
2 s.o.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
13-7
shall be used for a.ny other purpose without the previous sanction of the Local
Government.
(2) If condition I is broken the land
shall be liable to be divested under section 38(2) and resumed by Government
a.nd no compensation whatsoever shall be
payable to the Municipal Committee upon
such resumption.
(3) If the land is resumed by Government for ·--any Government purpose
the
provisions of Section 38(3) will
apply."
Sub-sections (2) & (3) of s. 38 referred t·J ran :
"38.(2) The State Government may, by
notification, direct that any property which
ha.s .vested in the committee shall cease to be
so vested, and thereupon the property specified in the notification shall cease to be so
vested and the State Government may pass
such orders as it thinks fit regarding the dispose.I and management of such property.
(3) Where any immovable property is
transferred, otherwise than by sales, by the
State Government to a committee, for public
purpose, it shall be deemed to be a condition
of such transfer, unless specially provided to
the contrary, that, should the property be at
any ·time resumed by the Government, the
compensation payable therefor shall notwithstanding any thing to the contrary in the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), in no case
exceed the amount, if any, paid to the Government for the transfer, together with the
cost or the present va.lue, whichever shall be
less, of any buildings oreated or other works
!'xeouted on the land by the committee!'
111111
Municipal
Corporolien of
Jabalpur
v.
Stille of
Modljyo Prad11h
4;qangarJ,
1oe:
Mu11ici'jJ11l
CorpMatiors of
Jobalp1T
..
• :
St>11 of
.Mad!iyri Pr.Jdl!sh-,----
'.'
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] .·•
The land thus obtained was being used by the
l\Iunicipal·Committee in accordance with the condi-'
tion of the., transfer as a public garden. ·
'
The Central Provinqes & ·Berar Municipalities
Act, 1922. was repealed by the City of Jabalpur
Corporation Act, 1948 (l\I. P. III of 1950). Under
this later enactment the Municipal ·.Committee was
· substituted by .the Jabalpur Corporation, the appellant before us and all properties-movable and
immovable-which were previously vested in the
Municipal Committee. were transferred to and ves-
. ted in the Corporation (vide s. 71 of the Jabalpur ·
Corporation Act), and by reason of tho vesting, the
appellant was in. enjoyment of the transferred
property.·
·
·
A hostel or boarding.house of a public institution-the Hitkarni l\Iahavidyalaya had been located.
in a building constructed to the north of the Public
Garden maintained by the Corporation. A public .
road ran to· the south of the Public Garden and as
there was not a proper and convenient access from
the Boardirig·house to the public road, the authori·
ties,of the l\Iahavidyalaya approached the State
Government to obtain for them a narrow strip of
land'about 20 ft. wide at the eastern extremity of
the Public Garden for the purpose of laying a
public road which would provide this access. The
· Government considered this request reasonable and
forwarded this request of the l\Iahavidyalaya, with
a covering letter of their own dated April 28, 1959,
to the Corporat~on for being complied with. The
request however was not acceded to and thereafter·
on February 11, 1960, the Government of Madhya
Pradesh issued a notification under s, 81 of the
Jabalpur Corporation Act notifying that the strip
of land needed for making a road measuring 3, 940
sq. ft. "stood divested" from . the, Corporation, -
~ec~ion 81 runs in these tenns ; .
·
·
,..,,.,
,
.\'.
-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR'rs
139
"81. The Provincial Government may
resume any immovable property, transferred
to the Corporation by itself or by any local
authority, where such property is required
for a public purpose, without payment of any
compensation other than the amount paid by
the Corporation for such transfer and the
market value at the date of resumption of any
buildings or works subsequently eracted or
executed thereon by the Corporation with the
,intention that such buildings or works should
be permanent :
Provided that compensation need not be
paid for buildings or works constructed or
erected in, contravention of the terms of the
transfer."
(The expression 'Provincial Government'
was amended so as to read 'State Government'
by the Adaptat_ion of Law.a Order).
Complaining that this notification was illegal
and beyond .tho jurisdiction of the State Govemment
the ,J abalpur Corporation moved the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh for relief under Art. 826 of the
Constitution praying for the issue of the writ of
mandamus quashing the notification of the government as without jurisdiction and forbidding the
enforcement of that order. This was opposed both,
by the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the
Hitkarini Sabha and the learned Judges dismissed
this petition. An application for a oertificate of
fitness foc appeal to this Court filed by the Corporation was also dismissed and therafter the present
appeal has been filed by special , leave obtained
under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
·
The
submission
of Mr. Chatterji-learned
CounRel for the appellant-was naturally directed to
showing that the reasoning adopted by the learned
Judges of the High Court was erroneous.
The
Municipal
Corporation of
Jabalpur
v.
'
State cf
11.adhya Pradesh
1962
Mt111ic;pal
Ct#j>oTalion of
J"balpur
v.
State nJ
ModAμ P1adt$h
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
reasoning was briefly as follows:
The learned
Judges aBSumed, accepting a submission made on
behalf of the appellant--.:orporation during the
argument~ on thA writ petition, that the authority
which effected the transfer of the property to the
Municipal Committee of Jabalpur by the order
which we have set out as the openin1r of this
judgment was not the Government of Central
Provinces & Berar hut "thP Central Government.
Starting from this premise, they concluded that the
notification could not be sustained under the terms
of 8. 81. St'ction 81, it will be seen, empowers the
State Government to resume immovable property
transferred to the Corporation by itself when such
property is required for a public purpose. If the
propcrt.y in question had been transferred by the
Cent.ral GovP.rnment, th!! argument ran that s. 81
was inapplicable. It should bo added that both in
the basic a8sumption that it was the Central and
not the Luca I Government the · predecessor of the
State GnvPrnment that had effected the transfer, as
well as in the further consequence that the exerciJ!e
of th!' power under s. 8.1 of the Corporation Act was
ineffective,
the
learnt.>d Judges were aided by
conceS6ions accepting the correctness of this position
which appear to havo been made by the Deputy
Advocate-General who represented the State before
them.
\Ve shall have occasion to refer to this
aspect later. Meanwhile
to proceed with the
reasoning of the learned Judges, s. 81 being assumed
not to be available to sustain the impugned notification, the learned Counsel for the State appears to
have relied on the provisions of s. 38 of the Act
of 1922 as enabling the State Government to resume
the land, anrl this notwithstanding that by the
Jabalpur Corporation Act III of 1950 the entirety
of the C. P. & Berar 111unicipalities Act of 1922
including s. 38 had been expressly repealed. The
learned Judges considered that this was possible by
~ .
,
.,
• ..1
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
141
reason of a saving contained in s. 3 (1) of the
Jabalpur Corporation Act which reads:
"3. (1) All debts and obligations incurred,
all contracts entered into with
and
all
matters and things engaged to be done by,
or for,
the
Municipality of Jubbulpore,
before this Act comes into force shall be
deemed to have been incurred,
entered
into with or engaged to be done by, or
for, the Corporation as, constituted under
this Act."
Mr. Chatterji-learned Counsel for the appellantCorporation submitted to us that the learned Judges
of the High Court had wrongly applied the saving
in s. 3 (1) of Act III of 1940 to sustain the
res.umption of land under the impugned notification.
He consider, however, that in view of our conclusion
that the impugned notification fell clearly within
the power ve3ted in State Government under s. 81
of the Jabalpur Corporation Act, it is not necessary
to pronounce upon the correctness of the submissions made to us on the construction of s. :l ( 1)
of that Act.
There could not be any dispute that if the
authority that had transferred the property covered
by the impugned notification, to the Municipal
Committee of Jabalpur was the Government of
Central Provinces & Berar, the
right of the
suoecssor-Government viz., the State Government
of Madhya Pr11-desh to take over the land from the
Corporation for the purpose of forming a public
road would manifestly be within their power under
s:Sl. That the Corporation of Jabalpur was the
succe~sor-in-title to the Municipal Committee of
Jabalpur and that the property which was vested
in the Municipal Committee of Jabalpur .was
transferred to and became vested in the appellant-
'\ Corporation under s. 71 of the Jabalpur Corporation
Aot, were never in dispute and indeed formed the
1961
M,,.iclpoJ
CorporaNn of
J•baljur·
v.
s1.i. •f
M c.dhyo P"zUah
AJyangar J;
l9Bt
JlunUipal
c..,., ..... "
J<UO/,.,.
••
Slate of
M•dl!.'° Pratluh
A.,_.,111 J.
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963)
very basis of the appellant's petition to the High
Court. If any particular property ha.d vested in the
Munfoipal Committee subject to its being divested
in particular contingencies, that the property in the
hands of t.he Ccrporntion wou 11'1 hr, held subject to
the ea.me obligations or di6abilities could a.lso not
be in controversy. Nor could it be conteRted that
the ma.king of a. public road is "a public purpose"
for which land may be resumed by the State
under s. 81.
What we desire to point out is
that if the State of Madhya Pradesh was or must
be
deemed to have been the tra.nsferer of the
property under the communication dated April 5,
1930, the validity of tho notification under s. 81
could not be challenged.
A1 wo have pointed out earlier, the learned
Judges proceeded, howeYor ·on the assumption that
it was not the Government of C. P. & Berar but the
Central Government that was the tra.nsforer of the
land in question.
There was, however, no baais
1 ,.
upon which the learned Judges could have rested
- •
this assumption. In the first place, in the writ
petition
by
which
the appellant.Corporation
challenged the validity of the notification it did not
deny the fact that
it was the Government
of C. P. & Bara.r tha.t had effected the transfer, and,
in faot, the allegations in the petition proceeded on
the basis that it was the Sta.ti' Government that
had done so
but the ·contention raised
wa.11
,
that on a. proper oonstruotion of s. 81 it applied
only to transfers ma.de after the Juhbulpore
Corporation Act, 1948 came in to force-an untenable contention which bas not been persisted in.
The question a.s
to who
a.
tra.nsferer
is
obviously a. question of fa.ct or at best a. mixed
question of law a.nd fact a.nd when a. party in a.
writ petition does not a.liege a.ny such fa.ct, it
stands to reason that he ought
not to
be
~
permitted to travel be;yond the fa.ota
1ta.ted,
•
j
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
143
at the stage of the arguments.
To confine
a
party to
his pleadings,
particularly
to
his
allegations
as
regards facts is
dictated
not
merely by the need for orderliness in these proceedings but for avoiding surprise to the other party
and consequent injustice resulting therefrom. Save
in exceptional cases, parties should be held strictly
to their pleadings and if owing to discovery of new
matt~r or grounds, there is need to add to or to
modify the allegations either in the petition or in
the counter-affidavit, the Court should . insist on
formal amendments being effected, for this would
enable ea.ch party to state its case with precision
and definiteness and the other side would ha.ve a
proper opportunity to know this case and meet it
with appropriate defences.
This salutary rule was
not adhered to in this case, and the departure from
the pleadings which the appellant was permitted
to adopt during the course of its 11rgurnents before
the High Court has led to injustice because thereby
the Counsel for the State who was apparently not
prepared to meet an argument not raised in the
·petition, made submissions at the spur of the
mome~t which were not just-ified by the true state
of affairs: In our opinion, on the allegations made
in the petition by the appellant Corporation it
ought not to have been permitted to put forward a
oase that the State Government was not the transferor of the property and the learned Judges of the
High Court should have proceeded on the basis of
the pleadings in the case.
Apart from this question of pleading, we consider that there is no merit in the contention
even otherwise. We have already set out. the terms·
by which the transfer of the land was communicated
to the Municipal Committee. The preamble recites
that is what being communicated. is the order of the
Government of the Central Provinces. The words
1961
M<Un eipal
Co,po"alion 01
Jabal:pur
v.
s1a1, o/
M adh,Ya Pradesh
Ayyangor J,
1911
Jlunici,,.Z
c.,,,.,.,ion of
J•b•lp111
Y.
Stott of
JI adhyo p,r,d,,Ji
144
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
of conveyanoe are in the second paragraph and
they read:
"Under seotion 38(l)(f) of the Central
Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922 Government
is p/,ea.sed
lo transfer to the
Munioipal
Committee ......••....... ".
The expreSBion "Government" here obviously, in
the context, means the Government of the Central
Provinces.
Paragraph 2 which specifies what should
happen if the condition on which the land has been
granted should be broken, states:
"The land shall be liable to be divested
under s. 38 (2) and resumed by Government"
"Government" here again obviously is the Govern·
ment of the Central
Provinces a construotion
reinforced if one looked at the sub-section referred
to. Further, in Condition 3 which speaks of what
was to happen if the land was resumed by Government for any Government purpose the referenoe to
"Government" again is to the "State Government".
On the terms of the document therefore it was the
Government of the Central Provinces that made the
grant -the predecessor of the State Government.
We find therefore that there is no factual foundation
for the· submission whioh was apparently ma.de
before tho High Court th&.t the transfer in the
present oase was by the Centr:il Government. No
doubt, the communication refers to the fact that
previous to ma.king the grant the G'lvernment of
C. P. & Berar had obtained tbs approval of the
Central Government, but that was merely a matter
of administr11tive arrangement between the Centre.I
and Looe.l Governments which is totally irrelevant
for determining the identity of the Government
whioh made the grant. Besides, the corporation
having e.coopted the grant from the State Govern-
~
ment wu obTioualy estopped from contending that
1 ..
-·
•
.. ·-
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
145
the land of which it continued in possession under
that grant was not one by the State Government or
that the State Government had not the authority to
make the grant. If such contention ie both not
open to the C01;poration and not tenable on the
merits, it would
follow
that
the
impugned
notification was fully justified by the provisions
under s. 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act.
We therefore hold that the impugned notifi·
cation was valid, though for reasons very different
from those on which its validity was sus.tained ·by
the learned Judges of the High Court: The appeal ·
fails and is dismissed. In view however· of the
concession made by the respondent before. the
High ([Jourt which misled the learned Judges we
consider it proper to direct that each party ·should
bear its costs throughout.
Appeal dismissed.
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER .·
v.
BRTJ NIWAS .OAS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, N. RA.JAGOPALA AYYANGAR .
and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Oinemalograp\ Films-Indigenous films-Cultural filmsEzhibilion .<>f-Condit-ion of license-f."!'otification-T'ires ofCintma1ograph .-let, 1.952 (Act. 37 of 1952), s. 12(4).
----
The rrspondent was an exhibitor of films in a public
cinema theatre. u •. der the powers conferred by s. 12(4) .
of the Cinematograph Act a notification was issued which
among other things provided that a certain percentage Of
~ 11approvcd film" should be sho\.\·n at every performance an<l
that film• produced in Indi• and certifie<l hy the Central
19~1
Munisipal
Corpo,.ati1n •f
,; 1Ibalp-rr
v.
Stal• oJ
Madhya Pradc•h