{"id":188480,"date":"1962-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962"},"modified":"2015-10-01T08:18:14","modified_gmt":"2015-10-01T02:48:14","slug":"municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Corporation Of The City … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Municipal Corporation Of The City … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 837, \t\t 1963 SCR (2) 135<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE  CITY OF JABALPUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n16\/04\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  837\t\t  1963 SCR  (2) 135\n\n\nACT:\nPleading--Strict  adherence  necessary--Amendment  must\t  be\nformally   made--Petitioner  pleading  transfer\t  by   State\nGovernment--Counsel  for  respondent conceding\ttransfer  by\nCentral Government--Duty of Court.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nActing\tunder s. 38 (1) (f) of the C. P. Municipalities\t Act\n1922,  the Provincial Government, with the sanction  of\t the\nGovernment of India, transferred certain Nazul Lands to\t the\nMunicipal Committee to be used for the purposes of a garden.\nThe 1922 Act was repealed by the City of Jabalpur  Corporat-\nion Act, 1948, which replaced the Municipal Committee by the\nJabalpur  Corporation.\tUnder s. 81 of the  Corporation\t Act\nthe State Government issued a notification notifying that  a\nportion\t of  this  land\t needed for  making  a\troad stood\ndivested from the Corporation.\tThe Corporation filed a writ\npetition before the High Court challenging the notification.\nOn  a concession made by the counsel for the State that\t the\ntransfer of the land had been made by the Central Government\nthe  High  Court  held that the notification  could  not  be\nsustained under s. 81 which was applicable only to transfers\nmade  by the State Government But the High  Court  sustained\nthe  notification  under  s. 38 of the\trepealed  1922\tAct,\nrelying upon the saving in s. 3 (1) of the Corporation Act.\nHeld, that the transfer of the land in fact had been made by\nthe  State (Provincial) Government and the notification\t was\nfully\tjustified  by  the  provisions\tof  s.\t81  of\t the\nCorporation Act.  There was no basis on which the High Court\ncould have based its assumption that the transfer was by the\nCentral\t Government.  The allegations in the  writ  petition\nproceeded  on the basis that the transfer was by  the  State\nGovernment.   On  the pleadings the appellant ought  not  to\nhave  been  permitted to put forward a case that  the  State\nGovernment  was\t not  the transferor of\t the  property.\t  To\nconfine a party to his pleadings particularly in respect  of\nfacts,\tis dictated not merely by the need  for\t orderliness\nbut  for  avoiding  surprise to the other  party.   Save  in\nexceptional cases, parties should be held strictly to  their\npleadings,  and\t if there is need to amend them,  the  Court\nshould insist on formal amendments being affected.\n136\nin the present case, on the terms of the order\ttransferring\nthe  land  it was clear that the transfer was  made  by\t the\nProvincial Government.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1962.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nFebruary 3, 1961, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.  P.
\nNo. 139 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for appellants.
\nB.   Sen and 1. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1.
\nB.   P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
1962.  April 16.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nAYYANGAR,  J.-By a communication dated April 5,\t 1930,\tfrom
\nthe  Secretary\tto the Government of the  Central  Provinces
\naddressed  to  the Commissioner Jabalpur  Division,  certain
\nNazul land was made available to the Municipal Committee  of
\nJabalpur.  In this letter the Secretary Stated
\n\t      “I am directed by the Governor in Council with
\n\t      the  previous  sanction of the  Government  of
\n\t      India  to communicate the following orders  of
\n\t      the Government of the Central Provinces :-
\n\t      Under   Section\t38(1)(f)  of   the   Central
\n\t      Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, Government
\n\t      is  pleased  to  transfer\t to  the   Municipal
\n\t      Committee,  Jubbiilpore, free of\tpremium\t and
\n\t      ground\t     rent\t  nazul\t\tland
\n\t      measuring……………\tof  the\t  Jabbulpore
\n\t      town.   The land shall vest in  the  Municipal
\n\t      Committee subject to the following  conditions
\n\t      :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   The\t land  shall be used  only  for\t the
\n\t      purpose of a garden and no part of it
\n\t      137<\/span>
\n\t      shall  be used for any other  purpose  without
\n\t      the previous sanction of the Local Government.
\n\t      (2)   If condition 1 is broken the land  shall
\n\t      be  liable to be divested under section  38(2)
\n\t      and resumed by Government .and no compensation
\n\t      whatsoever  shall be payable to the  Municipal
\n\t      Committee upon such resumption.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)   If\tthe land. is resumed  by  Government
\n\t      for  any Government purpose the provisions  of
\n\t      Section 38(3) will apply.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Sub-sections  (2)&  (3) of s. 38\treferred  to
\n\t      ran:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “38.(2)\tThe   State   Government   may,\t  by
\n\t      notification,  direct that any property  which
\n\t      has vested in the committee shall cease to  be
\n\t      so  vested, and thereupon the property  speci-
\n\t      fied in the notification shall cease to be  so
\n\t      vested and the State Government may pass\tsuch
\n\t      orders as it thinks fit regarding the disposal
\n\t      and management of such property.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)   Where   any\t  immovable   property\t  is
\n\t      transferred,  otherwise than by sales, by\t the
\n\t      State  Government to a committee,\t for  public
\n\t      purpose, it shall be deemed to be a  condition
\n\t      of such transfer, unless specially provided to
\n\t      the contrary, that, should the property be  at
\n\t      any  time\t resumed  by  the  Government,\t the
\n\t      compensation  payable therefor shall  notwith-
\n\t      standing any thing to the contrary in the Land
\n\t      Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), in no\tcase
\n\t      exceed the amount, if any, paid to the Govern-
\n\t      ment for the transfer, together with the\tcost
\n\t      or the present value, whichever shall be less,
\n\t      of  any  buildings  created  or  other   works
\n\t      executed on the land by the committee.”\n<\/p>\n
138<\/span><\/p>\n
The  land  thus\t obtained was being used  by  the  Municipal
\nCommittee  in accordance with the condition of the  transfer
\nas a public garden.\n<\/p>\n
The  Central Provinces & Berar Municipalities Act, 1922\t was
\nrepealed  by the City of Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1948\t (M.
\nP.  III of 1950).  Under this later enactment the  Municipal
\nCommittee  was substituted by the Jabalpur Corporation,\t the
\nappellant   before   us\t and  all   properties-movable\t and
\nimmovable-which\t were  previously vested  in  the  Municipal
\nCommittee were transferred to and vested in the\t Corporation
\n(vide s. 71 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act), and by  reason
\nof  the\t vesting,  the appellant was  in  enjoyment  of\t the
\ntransferred property.\n<\/p>\n
A  hostel  or  boarding house of  a  public  institution-the
\nHitkarni  Mahavidyalaya\t had  been  located  in\t a  building
\nconstructed to the north of the Public Garden maintained  by
\nthe  Corporation.   A public road ran to the  south  of\t the
\nPublic\tGarden and as there was not a proper and  convenient
\naccess\tfrom  the  Boarding-house to the  public  road,\t the
\nauthorities  of\t the  Mahavidyalaya  approached\t the   State
\nGovernment  to obtain for them a narrow strip of land  about
\n20  ft. wide at the eastern extremity of the  Public  Garden
\nfor the purpose of laying a public road which would  provide
\nthis   access.\t The  Government  considered  this   request
\nreasonable and forwarded this request of the  Mahavidyalaya,
\nwith a covering letter of their own dated April 28, 1959, to
\nthe  Corporation  for  being  complied\twith.-\tThe  request
\nhowever\t was not acceded to and thereafter on  February\t 11,
\n1960, the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification
\nunder  s. 81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act notifying\tthat
\nthe strip of land needed for making a road measuring 3,\t 940
\nsq. ft.\t “stood divested” from the Corporation., .Section 81
\nruns in these terms
\n139<\/span>
\n\t      “81.  The Provincial Government may resume any
\n\t      immovable\t  property,   transferred   to\t the
\n\t      Corporation   by\titself\tor  by\t any   local
\n\t      authority, where such property is required for
\n\t      a\t public\t purpose,  without  payment  of\t any
\n\t      compensation other than the amount paid by the
\n\t      Corporation  for such transfer and the  market
\n\t      value  at\t the  date  of\tresumption  of\t any
\n\t      buildings\t or  works subsequently\t reacted  or
\n\t      executed\tthereon by the Corporation with\t the
\n\t      intention that such buildings or works  should
\n\t      be permanent :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat compensation need not  be\tpaid
\n\t      for buildings or works constructed or  erected
\n\t      in   contravention   of  the  terms   of\t the
\n\t      transfer.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      (The  expression ‘Provincial  Government’\t was
\n\t      amended  so as to read ‘State  Government’  by
\n\t      the Adaptation of Laws Order).\n<\/p>\n
Complaining  that this notification was illegal\t and  beyond
\nthe  jurisdiction  of  the  State  Government  the  Jabalpur
\nCorporation  moved  the\t High Court of\tMadhya\tPradesh\t for
\nrelief\tunder Art-. 826 of the Constitution praying for\t the
\nissue  of the writ of mandamus quashing the notification  of
\nthe  government as without jurisdiction and  forbidding\t the
\nenforcement  of\t that order.  This was opposed both  by\t the
\nState  of Madhya Pradesh as well as the Hitkarini Sabha\t and
\nthe learned Judges dismissed this petition.  An\t application
\nfor a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court  filed
\nby  the\t Corporation was also dismissed\t and  therefore\t the
\npresent\t appeal\t has been filed by  special  leave  obtained
\nunder Art. 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  submission\t of Mr. Chatterji-learned  Counsel  for\t the
\nappellant-was\tnaturally  directed  to\t showing  that\t the
\nreasoning  adopted by the learned judges of the\t High  Court
\nwas erroneous.\tThe
\n140<\/span>
\nreasoning  was\tbriefly\t as  follows:  The  learned   Judges
\nassumed,  accepting  a\tsubmission made\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant-Corporation  during  the  arguments  on  the\twrit
\npetition, that the authority which effected the transfer  of
\nthe  property to the Municipal Committee of Jabalpur by\t the
\norder which we have set out as the opening of this judgment
\nwas not the Government of Central Provinces & Berar but\t the
\nCentral\t Government.   Starting\t from  this  premise,\tthey
\nconcluded that the notification could not be sustained under
\nthe  terms of s. 81.  Section 81, it will be seen,  empowers
\nthe   State   Government  to   resume\timmovable   property
\ntransferred to the Corporation by itself when such  property
\nis  required  for  a public purpose.   If  the\tproperty  in
\nquestion had been transferred by the Central Government, the
\nargument  ran  that s. 81 was inapplicable.   It  should  be
\nadded  that  both in the basic assumption that\tit  was\t the
\nCentral and not the Local Government the predecessor of\t the
\nState Government that had effected the transfer, as well  as
\nin  the further consequence that the exercise of  the  power
\nunder  s.  81 of the Corporation Act  was  ineffective,\t the
\nlearned\t Judges\t were  aided by\t concessions  accepting\t the
\ncorrectness of this position which appear to have been\tmade
\nby  the\t Deputy Advocate General who represented  the  State
\nbefore them., We shall have occasion to refer to this aspect
\nlater.\t Meanwhile  to\tproceed with the  reasoning  of\t the
\nlearned\t Judges, s. 81 being assumed not to be available  to
\nsustain\t the impugned notification, the learned Counsel\t for
\nthe State appears to have relied on the provisions of s.  38
\nof  the\t Act  of 1922 as enabling the  State  Government  to
\nresume\tthe  land,  and this  notwithstanding  that  by\t the
\nJabalpur Corporation Act III of 1950 the entirety of the  C.
\nP.  & Berar Municipalities Act of 1922 including s.  38\t bad
\nbeen expressly repealed.  The learned Judges considered that
\nthis was possible by
\n\t\t\t    141<\/span>
\nreason\tof  a saving contained in s. 3 (1) of  the  Jabalpur
\nCorporation Act which reads-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.  (1) All debts and  obligations  incurred,
\n\t      all  contracts  entered  into  with  and\t all
\n\t      matters  and things engaged to be done  by  or
\n\t      for,  the Municipality of\t Jubbulpore,  before
\n\t      this  Act comes into force shall be deemed  to
\n\t      have  been  incurred,  entered  into  with  or
\n\t      engaged to be done by, or for, the Corporation
\n\t      as constituted under this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr. Chatterji-learned Counsel for the appellant\t Corporation
\nsubmitted  to us that the learned Judges of the\t High  Court
\nbad  wrongly  applied the saving in s. 3 (1) of Act  III  of
\n1940  to sustain the resumption of land under  the  impugned
\nnotification.\tHe  consider, however, that in view  of\t our
\nconclusion  that  the  impugned\t notification  fell  clearly
\nwithin\tthe power vested in State Government under s. 81  of
\nthe  Jabalpur  Corporation  Act,  it  is  not  necessary  to
\npronounce upon the correctness of the submissions made to us
\non the construction of s. I (1) of that Act,
\nThere  could not be any dispute that if the  authority\tthat
\nhad  transferred  the  property\t covered  by  the   impugned
\nnotification, to the Municipal Committee of Jabalpur was the
\nGovernment  of Central Provinces & Berar, the right  of\t the
\nsuceessor-Government  viz.’ the State Government  of  Madhya
\nPradesh\t to take over the land from the Corporation for\t the
\npurpose of forming a public road would manifestly be  within
\ntheir  power under a. 81. That the Corporation\tof  Jabalpur
\nwas  the  successor-in-title to the Municipal  Committee  of
\nJabalpur  and.’ that the property which- was vested  in\t the
\nMunicipal  Committee  of  Jabalpur was\ttransferred  to\t and
\nbecame\tvested in the appellant Corporation under s.  71  of
\nthe  Jabalpur  Corporation Act, were never  in\tdispute\t and
\nindeed formed the
\n142<\/span>
\nvery  basis of the appellant’s petition to the\tHigh  Court.
\nIf  any\t particular  property had vested  in  the  Municipal
\nCommittee  subject  to\tits  being  divested  in  particular
\ncontingencies,\tthat  the  property  in\t the  hands  of\t the
\nCorporation would be held subject to the same obligations or
\ndisabilities could also not be in controversy.\tNor could it
\nbe  contested that the making of a public road is “a  public
\npurpose” for which land may be resumed by the State under s.\n<\/p>\n
81.   What  we desire to point out is that if the  State  of
\nMadhya\tPradesh\t was  or must be deemed\t to  have  been\t the
\ntransferee  of\tthe property under the\tcommunication  dated
\nApril 5, 1930, the validity of the notification under s.  81
\ncould not be challenged.\n<\/p>\n
As   we\t have  pointed\tout  earlier,  the  learned   Judges
\nproceeded,  however  on the assumption that it was  not\t the
\nGovernment of C. P. & Berar but the Central Government\tthat
\nwas  the transferrer of the land in question.\tThere’\twas,
\nhowever,  no basis upon which the learned Judges could\thave
\nrested\tthis  assumption.  In the first place, in  the\twrit
\npetition  by which the appellant-Corporation challenged\t the
\nvalidity  of the notification it did not deny the fact\tthat
\nit was the Government of C. P. & Berar that had effected the
\ntransfer,  and,\t in fact, the allegations  in  the  petition
\nproceeded on the basis that it was the State Government that
\nhad  done so but the contention raised was that on a  proper
\nconstruction  of  is. 81 it applied only to  transfers\tmade
\nafter the Jubbulpore Corporation Act, 1948 came into  force-
\nan untenable contention which has not been persisted in.
\nThe question as to who a transferor is obviously a  question
\nof fact or at best a mixed question of law and fact and when
\na party in a writ petition does not allege any such fact, it
\nstands to reason that he ought not to be permitted to travel
\nbeyond the facts stated,
\n\t\t\t    143<\/span>
\nat  the\t stage of the arguments, To confine a party  to\t his
\npleadings, particularly to his allegations as regards  facts
\nis dictated not merely by the need for orderliness in  these
\nproceedings but for avoiding surprise to the other party and
\nconsequent   injustice\t resulting   therefrom.\t   Save\t  in
\nexceptional cases, parties should be held strictly to  their
\npleadings  and\tif  owing  to discovery\t of  new  matter  or
\ngrounds,  there\t is  need  to  add  to\tor  to\tmodify\t the
\nallegations  either  in\t the petition  or  in  the  counter-
\naffidavit,  the\t Court should insist  on  formal  amendments
\nbeing  effected, for this would enable each party  to  state
\nits case with precision and definiteness and the other\tside
\nwould  have a proper opportunity to know this case and\tmeet
\nit  with appropriate defences.\tThis salutary rule  was\t not
\nadhered\t to  in\t this  case,  and  the\tdeparture  from\t the
\npleadings which the appellant was permitted to adopt  during
\nthe course of its arguments before the High Court has led to
\ninjustice because thereby the Counsel for the State who\t was
\napparently  not prepared, to meet an argument not raised  in
\nthe  petition,\tmade submissions at the spur of\t the  moment
\nwhich  were not justified by the true state of affairs.\t  In
\nour opinion, on the allegations made in the petition by\t the
\nappellant Corporation it ought not to have been permitted to
\nput  forward  a case that the State Government was  not\t the
\ntransferor  of\tthe property and the learned Judges  of\t the
\nHigh  Court  should  have  proceeded on\t the  basis  of\t the
\npleadings in the case.\n<\/p>\n
Apart from this question of pleading, we consider that there
\nis  no\tmerit  in the contention even  otherwise.   We\thave
\nalready set out the terms by which the transfer of the\tland
\nwas  communicated to the Municipal Committee.  The  preamble
\nrecites that is what being communicated is the order of\t the
\nGovernment of the Central Provinces.  The words
\n144<\/span>
\nof conveyance are in the second paragraph and they read:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Under   section\t38(1)(f)  of   the   Central
\n\t      Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922  Government
\n\t      is  pleased  to transfer\t to  the  Municipal
\n\t      Committee……………. “.
\n\t      The expression “Government” here obviously, in
\n\t      the  context,  means  the\t Government  of\t the
\n\t      Central\tProvinces.    Paragraph\t  2
\n\t      which  specifies\twhat should  happen  if\t the
\n\t      condition\t on which the land has been  granted
\n\t      should be broken, states:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The  land  shall be liable  to  be.  divested
\n\t      under s. 38 (2) and resumed by Government “.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
“Government”  here again obviously is the Government of\t the
\nCentral Provinces a construction reinforced if one looked at
\nthe  sub-section referred to. Further, in Condition 3  which
\nspeaks\tof  what was to happen if the land  was\t resumed  by
\nGovernment  for\t any  Government purpose  the  reference  to
\n“Government”  again  is to the “State Government”.   On\t the
\nterms of the document therefore it was the Government of the
\nCentral Provinces that made the grant-the predecessor of the
\nState  Government.   We\t find therefore\t that  there  is  no
\nfactual\t foundation for the submission which was  apparently
\nmade before the High Court that the transfer in the  present
\ncase   was  by\tthe  Central  Government.   No\tdoubt,\t the
\ncommunication refers to the fact that previous to making the
\ngrant  the  Government\tof C. P. & Berar  had  obtained\t the
\napproval  of the Central Government, but that was  merely  a
\nmatter of administrative arrangement between the Central and
\nLocal\tGovernments   which  is\t  totally   irrelevant\t for
\ndetermining  the identity of the Government which  made\t the
\ngrant.\t Besides, the corporation having accepted the  grant
\nfrom  the  State  Government  was  obviously  estopped\tfrom
\ncontending that
\n\t\t\t    145<\/span>
\nthe  land  of which it continued in  possession\t under\tthat
\ngrant was not one by the State Government or that the  State
\nGovernment had not the authority to make the grant.  If such
\ncontention  is\tboth  not open to the  Corporation  and\t not
\ntenable\t on the merits., it would follow that  the  impugned
\nnotification was fully justified by the, provisions under s.
\n81 of the Jabalpur Corporation Act.\n<\/p>\n
We therefore hold that the impugned notification was  valid,
\nthough\tfor reasons very different from those on  which\t its
\nvalidity  was  sustained by the learned Judges of  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\tThe appeal fails and is dismissed.  In view  however
\nof  the\t concession made by the respondent before  the\tHigh
\nCourt which misled the learned Judges we consider it  proper
\nto direct that each party should bear its costs throughout.
\nAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Municipal Corporation Of The City … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 837, 1963 SCR (2) 135 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF JABALPUR Vs. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188480","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMunicipal Corporation Of The City ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-01T02:48:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Corporation Of The City … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T02:48:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2670,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962\",\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T02:48:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of The City … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-01T02:48:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Corporation Of The City … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962","datePublished":"1962-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T02:48:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962"},"wordCount":2670,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962","name":"Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T02:48:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-the-city-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-16-april-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Corporation Of The City … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188480","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188480"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188480\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}