Venkatachala, J. - (1.) These appeals by Special Leave, directed against the common judgment dated 5th, 6th and 7th August, 1974 rendered in First Appeals Nos. 386-395 of 1968 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, are required to be decided by us by considering and answering three important questions:(i) Does the provision in sub-section (1) of Section 301 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 -"the BMC Act" specify a principle of determination of compensation payable to the owners of the buildings or lands acquired for a public street under Sections 298 and 299 thereof (ii) Does the principle specified in subsection (1) of Section 301 of the BMC Act, for determination of compensation payable to the owners for their buildings or lands acquired under Sections 298 and 299 thereof, warrant determination of such compensation according to the market value of such acquired buildings or lands (iii) What method could be adopted for determining the amount of compensation payable under sub-section (1) of Section 301 of the BMC Act
(2.) The salient facts which have led to the filing of the present appeals lie in a narrow compass:Gowalia Tank Road and Bhulabhai Desal Road lying within the area of the Bombay Municipal Corporation - "the BMC", are public streets envisaged under the BMC Act. In the year 1962, the BMC which resolve to improve the said public streets by widening them, acquired out of the lands of respondents in these appeals, certain portions which fell within the regular line of the public streets and took their possession, as provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 298 and sub-section (1) of Section 299 of the BMC Act. The Commissioner who was liable under sub-section (1) of Section 301 of the BMC Act, to pay compensation to the respondents in these appeals for their acquired portions of lands, offered to pay them compensation at an uniform rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard of land. But, the respondents, who disputed the adequacy of the said compensation offered to be paid to them, filed applications before the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, praying for grant of higher compensation for their acquired portions of lands, by taking recourse to the provision in Section 504 of the BMC Act. The Chief Judge, who entertained those applications, with the consent of parties, clubbed all the said applications, recorded common evidence thereon and decided them by his common judgment dated 14th March, 1968. Under that common judgment, the compensation made payable to the respondents in these appeals the owners, for their acquired portions of lands, was their market value worked out at a rate ranging from Rs. 450/- per sq. yard to Rs. 640/per sq. yard. The BMC assailed that common judgment of the learned Chief Judge, as granting excessive compensation, by filing appeals in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. A Division Bench of the High Court, which heard those appeals, by its common judgment dated the 5th, the 6th and the 7th August, 1974, while allowed one of them partly by reducing the compensation in some measure, dismissed the rest. According to the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, and the Division Bench of the High Court, what was payable by way of compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 301 of the BMC Act to the owners, for the portions of their lands acquired under either of Sec. 298 or Sec. 299 thereof, was the market value of such portions and, therefore, the market value obtainable by the owners for their respective entire lands had to be apportioned between the un-acquired portion of the land and the acquired portion of the land and it was that much of the market value apportionable to acquired land, which was liable to be paid to the owner as compensation for his acquired land. Consequently, both the Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes and the Division Bench of the High Court determine the market value of the entire land of respondent/s concerned in each appeal, of which his/their acquired portion of land formed part and apportioned to such acquired portion of land out of the market value of the entire land so determined, according to the ratio of the area worked out on square yard basis. The market value of the acquired portion of land so determined was, in fact, treated as the loss sustained by the respondent-owner concerned and the Commissioner was directed to pay the same to him/ them as compensation required to be paid under sub-sec. (1) of Section 301 of the BMC Act for his/ their acquired land. For the unpaid amount of such compensation, interest at 6% per annum was also ordered to be paid from the date of taking possession of the land till its actual payment. The present appeals by Special Leave are filed on behalf of the BMC, against the said judgments of both the Court of Small Causes and the High Court, assailing the amounts of compensation determined for the acquired portions of lands of the respondents, on the basis of the principle of their market value, purporting to be under subsection (1) of Section 301 of the BMC Act.
(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the BMC, the common appellant in all the present appeals, contended that the Court of Small Causes, as well as, the High Court had gone wrong in determining the compensation payable to the owner under sub-section (1) of Section 301 of the BMC Act for his land acquired under Sections 298 and 299 thereof, was its market value, when such compensation to be determined could not have been anything other than the loss which that owner had to sustain as a consequence of such acquisition and the expense which that owner had to incur as a consequence of such acquisition. He also contended that the method of determining the amount of market value of the whole land of the respondent in each appeal including that which was acquired and apportioning that market value to the portion of the acquired land, was indeed, not a method which the Court of Small Causes and the High Court, could have adopted for determining the compensation payable under sub-section of Section 301 of the BMC Act. On the other hand, learned Counsel who appeared for contesting respondents in the present appeals, sought to support the judgments of the Court of Small Causes and the High Court by which it has been held that the compensation payable to the owners for their portions of lands acquired by the BMC under Sections 298 and 299 thereof cannot be anything but their market value and when such market value was given as compensation to owners for their acquired lands, there was no warrant for interfering with the same, by this Court. They also sought to obtain support for their contention from the decision of Privy Council in Municipal Council of Colombo v. Kuna Mana Navanna Suna Pana Latchiman Chettiar, 1947 Appeal Cases 188.;