Municipal Council vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 730 Bom

JUDGMENT

A.B. Naik, J.

1. As the law and facts in both the petitions are identical, we propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment.

2. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner i.e. Municipal Council, Jalna for the following relief:

"A)    By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction of like nature to the reference Court to hear and decide the reference after giving opportunity to lead evidence and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
 

B)    By issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction of like nature, the provision to Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act be quashed being violative of the provisions of Constitution of India and be held that the acquiring body is having right to file reference or appeal under Section 54.
 

C)    By issuing an appropriate writ or order or direction it be ordered that the acquiring body has independent and district right of appeal under Section 54 of the Acquisition Act being person interested against the judgment and award dated 8-2-1990 in L.A.R. No. 17 of 1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalna.
 

D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the petitioner be permitted to file first appeal in this Hon'ble High Court against the judgment and award dated 8-2-1990 in L.A.R. No. 17 of 1987 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalna with such a undertaking from petitioner in the event of success in this petition it would pay ad-valorem Court fees as per claim in such first appeal."

3. The petitioner Municipal Council, Jalna (hereinafter referred to as the council) came to be appointed as the planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1966). After the appointment of council as the planning authority, it has prepared and published draft development plans for Jalna city. The plan so prepared came to be sanctioned by the government which came to be published in the official gazette on 17th October 1974. After the plan came into force, the council submitted an application under Section 126(1)(c) of the Act of 1966 to the State Government for acquiring the lands reserved in the plan. On the receipt of the application from the petitioner, the State Government published a notification under Section 126 of the Act of 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on 7th April 1981. After the notification the process to prepare the award came to be initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and ultimately the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Command Area Jaikwadi Project, Jalna on 17th December 1983 passed award by determining the compensation to be awarded to the land owners who are respondents in these Writ Petitions and accordingly the compensation was paid.

4. After the publication of the award, the land owners i.e. respondents did not accept the award and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court for determination by the Court the amount of compensation. Accordingly the Special Land Acquisition Officer referred the matters to the Civil Court at Jalna. There were in all 12 references made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court in respect of the lands acquired pursuant of the notification dated 7th April 1981. In the reference, in the Civil Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the State of Maharashtra through Collector were the respondents. The claimants/owners of the land who sought the reference produced evidence before the Civil Court for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The learned Civil Court by the judgment and order in those references, determined the market value and enhanced the compensation that is to be paid to the land owners. The judgments were delivered by the Civil Court between 29th January 1990 to 8th February 1990 in Reference Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 17 all of 1984 and 17 of 1987.

5. The present writ petitions are filed by the council i.e. the planning authority challenging the said judgments.

6. The references were decided as stated above by the Civil Court as the references are decided in January and February 1990 and these petitions are filed in this Court on 26-11-1990 the prayers A and B of the petition have become infructuous. Insofar as prayer Clause 'B' is concerned the prayer need not be considered by this Court in view of law declared by the Apex Court in U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, . In view of this aspect the learned counsel restricted this petition in respect of prayer Clause 'C' only. The learned counsel appearing for the Council has advanced his argument in that respect. The learned counsel Shri Mundhe contended that the council i.e. the planning authority is local authority as defined under Section 3(AA) of the Land Acquisition Act and is a personal interested in the compensation i.e. to be determined under the Act. The learned counsel therefore, contended that the Civil Court has decided all the references without giving any notice to the council as such, the judgment and award passed by the Civil Court required to be set aside and the opportunity be given to the council to establish the market value of the acquired property. The learned counsel contended that petitioner being necessary party in the proceedings, before the Civil Court, and as the respondents claimants have not impleaded the council i.e. planning authority as party respondent, the entire judgment and award passed by the Civil Court stands vitiated. In alternative the learned counsel contended that as the council has to pay the amount of compensation and the Civil Court has enhanced the compensation by modifying the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer; the judgments and awards, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna be set aside and matter be remanded for retrial, with a direction to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, to give an opportunity to the council to lead evidence to establish the true and correct market value of the acquired land. In support of the abovesaid contentions, the learned counsel placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by LRs and Ors. . Few facts to be noted which were before the Apex Court in Gyan Devi's case U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was constituted under Section 3 of the U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as "the U. P. Act.". Under Section 15 of the U. P. Act, one of the functions of the board is to frame and execute housing and improvement schemes and other projects. Section 16 provides that the Board may on its own or at the instance of a local authority frame a housing or improvement scheme and that the Board shall frame such a scheme when so directed by the State Government. Section 17 prescribes the matters which are required to be provided for by such schemes. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 makes provision for preparation of a notice by the Board when any housing or improvement scheme has been framed and the said notice is required to be published in the manner as prescribed in Sub-section (2) of Section 28. Section 30 makes provision for filing of objections against the scheme and Section 31 provides for sanction of the scheme, with or without modifications, after considering the objections, if any, received under Section 30. Such sanction is to be given by the Board when the estimated cost of the schemes does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000 and by the State Government where the estimated costs exceed that amount. Sub-section (1) of Section 32 provides that whenever the Board or the State Government sanctions a housing or improvement scheme, it shall be notified in the Gazette and Sub-section (2) lays down that the notification under Sub-section (1) in respect of any scheme shall be conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned. In cases where the scheme is sanctioned by the Board an appeal lies to the State Government against the decision of the Board under Sub-section (3) of the Section 32 and if the scheme is altered or cancelled by the State Government on such appeal the cancellation or alteration is required to be notified in the Gazette under Sub-section (4) of Section 32. Section 55 makes provision for acquisition of land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of the U. P. Act and lays down that such acquisition may be made under the provisions of the L.A. Act as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh and further provides that the L. A. Act of this purpose shall be subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule to the U.P. Act. Section 64 provides for the constitution of one or more tribunals by the State Government for the purpose of performing the functions of the Court with reference to the acquisition of land for the Board under the L. A. Act, as modified by the Schedule to the U. P. Act. In the Schedule to the U. P. Act modifications have been introduced in the provisions of the L. A. Act. Some of the said modifications which are relevant for the purpose of the present case are :

"(a) Clause (i) has been added in Section 3 whereby the "local authority" has been defined to include "the Board".

(b) The first publication in the Official Gazette of a notice of any housing or improvement scheme under Section 28 or Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the U. P. Act is to have the same effect as publication in the Official Gazette of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the L.A. Act.

(c) The publication of a notification under Sub-section (1) or as the case may be, under Sub-section (4) of Section 32 of the U. P. Act is to have the same effect as a declaration by the State Government under Section 6 of the L. A. Act.

(d) Sub-sections (1) and (1-A) of Section 17 of the L. A. Act as applicable in the State of U. P. have been substituted by Sub-section (1) which provides that whenever the State Government so directs in the interest of the expeditious execution of a housing or improvement scheme under the U. P. Act, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 9 take possession of any land needed for the purposes of the U. P. Act and such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.

(e) Section 17-A has been added whereby it has been provided that in every case referred to in Section 16 or Section 17, the Collector shall upon payment of the cost of acquisition, make over charge of the land to the Housing Commissioner, or an officer authorised in this behalf under the U. P. Act and the land shall, thereupon vest in the Board subject to the liability of the Board to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of its acquisition."

The board framed a scheme under the Act known as the "Trans-Yamuna Housing and Accommodation Scheme" and notice under Section 28 of the said Act, in respect of the scheme (analogous to a notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act) was published on 31st January 1970 and the notification under Section 32 of the said Act (analogous to declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act) was published on 21st August 1974. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 15th April 1978 wherein amount of compensation was fixed by adopting belting system. After passing of the award, possession of the land was taken on 27th April 1978. At the instance of land owners, reference was made to the tribunal constituted under Section 64 of the Act. The tribunal by common award dated 28th June 1985 fixed market value of the acquired land of the appellant in the appeal. Against the said decision first appeals were filed and the appeals were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 18th April 1991. The High Court modified the order and also negatived the claim of land owners for the amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, U. P. Awas Parishad approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. It was undisputed fact before the Apex Court that the board was not impleaded as a party to the reference before the tribunal or in the appeals before the High Court. After decision of the High Court, board filed review petition for reviewing the judgment passed by the High Court in first appeals but the said review petitions were dismissed by High Court on 21st January 1993. The board has also filed application for being impleaded as party in the appeal filed by the land owners in the Supreme Court. On the facts stated above, the Apex Court considered the question as noted in paragraph 8 of the report.

7. The learned counsel therefore, submitted before us that by virtue of Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the local authority is permitted to appear and adduce the evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation as no notice of the proceedings were given to the council, it could not lead the evidence before the Civil Court.

8. We will consider merit of the contention of the learned counsel on the back drop of the law declared the Apex Court in Gyan Devi (supra)

(A) Re :-- Notice of proceeding before the Land Acquisition Officer :--We will ascertain from the record that is produced before us whether the council had the notice of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. The council has annexed the award dated 17-12-1983 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Command Area, Jaikwadi Project, to this petition from the contents of the award following aspect are noticed by us :

i) The council has prepared, published the Development plans of Jalna city.

ii) The Government of Maharashtra approved the plan on 17-10-1974.

iii) The land required and reserved and designed for public purpose, and the land so reserved is needed for public purpose.

iv) The Municipal council submitted the acquisition proposal to the Collector, for necessary sanction.

v) On receipt of proposal by the council the lands so reserved, were notified under Section 126(A) of Act of 1966 read with Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act on 7-4-1981.

vi) All the properties involved in the acquisition have been jointly measured by the District Inspector of Land Record, Aurangabad and the representative of Municipal Council, Jalna.

vii) The municipal council, Jalna i.e. the acquiring body has not filed any remarks on the claims submitted by the interested persons.

From the abovestated facts, it is clear that the council has initiated the proposal for acquisition and it has not filed any document/reply to the claim made by the respondents/land owners. This aspect is not denied or disputed by the council, in this petition. Therefore, it is clear that the council who has initiated the acquisition had the notice of the proceedings before the land acquisition officer. Sub-section 2 of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, provides that the local authority may appear before the Collector or the Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. From the statement made in the award which we have quoted earlier, it is clear that the petitioner council has not adduced any evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer; hence the council now cannot make any grievance about non- issuance of the notice from the Land Acquisition Officer. So far as the question about the locus of the acquiring body and its right to participate in the proceeding, stand concluded by the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gyan Devi's case (supra).

9. The Apex Court in Gyan Devi's case (supra) considered the scope and ambit of Section 50(2) read with Section 11-A (as amended by Act of 68/1984) and held thus:--

"Now the proviso inserted in Sub-section (1) of Section 11 by the Amendment Act of 1984 lays down the statutory requirement that no award shall be made by the Collector without previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. There is no similar provision requiring the approval of the local authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 is the only provision which affords a certain degree of protection to it in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector as well as the reference Court. Keeping these considerations in view we are of the opinion that Sub-section (2) of Section 50 must be construed as conferring a right on the local authority for whom the land is being acquired to participate in the acquisition proceedings at the stage of determination of the amount of compensation before the Collector as well as the reference Court."

Keeping in mind the abovesaid ratio of Gyan Devi's case, we accept that the acquiring body has the right to participate in the proceedings. But in the case at hand, the said ratio cannot be made applicable for the reason that the acquiring body who actually initiated the acquisition proceedings, has not exercised the right given to it by virtue of Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, this observation of ours, get support from the statement made in the award dated 17-12-1983 (Exh. A) in view of this aspect, we are not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel, that no notice is given to the council by the Land Acquisition Officer; and for that matter, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated.

10. B) Regarding notice from the Civil Court :

Coming to the grievance made by the counsel that the Civil Court which decided the reference, has not issued notice to the council. The learned counsel contended that the council is a necessary party to the proceedings as the council has to carry burden of payment of compensation from its fund and therefore, the Civil Court was under obligation to issue notice to it. So far as the question whether the council i.e. acquiring body is necessary party, or proper party, is concluded in Gyan Devi's case (supra) we need not ponder any more on this aspect.

11. We now consider the first part of the above contention namely the non-issuance of notice by the Civil Court to acquiring body. It is not disputed that the lands which are acquired were 'reserved' under the Act of 1966. The notification under Section 126(A) of Act of 1966, read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published in the gazette on 7-4-1981. It is also not disputed that on publication of the said notification the provisions of Land Acquisition Act shall apply with modification as stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the Act of 1966, as the provision of Land Acquisition Act are made applicable, after stage of issue of Section 6 of notification. Now we will refer in brief the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (as applicable to the State of Maharashtra). Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the Collector to issue notice to person interested calling upon such interested person to appear before him and to state the nature of their claim in respect of the land to be acquired. On receipt of the claim by the interested person, the Collector/ Land Acquisition Officer to make an enquiry and make an award to determine the compensation as per Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.

12. After the award so passed and the interested person, who has not accepted the award, can apply under Section 18 to the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, to make a reference to the Civil Court to determine the compensation. On receipt of the application, the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer has to ascertain whether it fulfils the condition stated in Section 18 and then only make a reference to Civil Court. While making the reference the Collector/Land Acquisition has to state for the information of the Court the facts as per Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act.

13. On receipt of the reference from the Civil Court, the Court has to follow the procedure of service of notice under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act which reads thus :

Section 20 :--

"The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons namely:--

(a) the applicant;

(b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation, awarded; and

(c) If the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector :--

From Section 20, it is clear that no provision is made in Section 20, for issuance of notice to the acquiring bodies.

14. As we have noted above, when the reference was sent to the Civil Court, and on receipt, the Civil Court has to issue notice to those parties as stated in Section 20 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Act as applicable to Maharashtra, nowhere says or direct that the notice be issued to the acquiring body. On this count, we are not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel that Civil Court should have issued notice to the acquiring body. However, after the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gyan Devi 's case, for the first time the question of right of the acquiring body to participate in acquisition proceedings before the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer or on reference before the Civil Court, was considered in right perspective and held that the acquiring body should be added as respondent and notice must be issued to it by the Land Acquisition Officer before passing of award and the judgment of Civil Court.

15. In view of aforesaid reasonings of ours, now we will find out how far the ratio of the Apex Court in Gyan Devi's case can be applied to this case. The Award by Land Acquisition Officer was declared in 1983 and the judgment of Civil Court in 1990, which has reached finality by now. The law declared by the Apex Court is always prospective unless specifically ruled that it shall apply retrospectively. In Gyan Devi's case in the final conclusion (the majority view) the Apex Court in para 10 has ruled thus :

"10. The matter which stand concluded will, however, not to be reviewed."

We may at this stage, refer to the minority view (Per Sahai, J.) in Gyan Devi's case, as we find that in the majority view, the amendment made by the State laws, was not specifically considered, but (Sahai, J.) (minority view) has considered this aspect:

(v) Any proceeding taken under the L. A. Act as amended by the State law or if specifically provided in the State enactment under which the land is being acquired providing for issuance of notice or giving an opportunity of hearing is required to be followed and if such notice is not issued or hearing is not afforded then the proceedings as in the Karnataka Act or in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam referred to earlier are liable to be set aside."

As we have noticed that in Section 20 of Land Acquisition Act as applicable to Maharashtra nowhere provided for notice to the acquiring body.

For the parity of these reasons fault cannot be found with the Civil Court for not issuing or serving notice to the council. In view of the fact of this case and applying the conclusion (Ratio) recorded by the Apex Court in Gyan Devi's case quoted above, the award dated 17-12-1983, and the judgment of the Civil Court in reference has reached the finality which cannot be interfered with by this Court, in these petitions.

Regarding non filing of appeal by council:

16. We will now deal with the last contention of the learned counsel about non filing of appeal by the State. As a matter of fact, as stated in the prayer Clause 'D' the petitioner by way of interim prayer sought permission to file appeal against the award of the Civil Court in the reference. Considering the prayer Clause 'D' the same cannot be granted now. This Court on 4-11-1992 issued 'Rule Nisi' and directed that these petitions be heard along with Writ Petition No. 2426/1989. But at the motion hearing it appeared that prayer Clause 'D' was not pressed. Be it as it may. When we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether any attempt is made by the council to file appeal against the said judgment and award of the Civil Court, initially learned counsel has stated that the Municipal Council has no notice of the judgment of the Civil Court but when confronted with the fact that the government of Maharashtra, Law and Judiciary Department, on 5th July 1990, issued a memorandum inviting proper appeal proposal from the District Government Pleader, Jalna for preferring appeals against the 12 references decided by the Civil Court. The copy of the said memorandum was sent to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna. When confronted with this situation, the learned council fairly accepted that the Municipal Council has knowledge of the judgment of the Civil Court in view of the copy sent to it by the Section Officer, Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad dated 5-7-1990. From the noting below the memorandum, it is clear that the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Jalna was requested to forward his views regarding whether the appeal against the judgment of the trial Court should or should not be filed in the High Court, this was necessitated because the expenses of filing appeals are to be incurred and borned by the acquiring body. It was also stated in the said note that the Law and Judiciary Department cannot take any decision in absence of acquiring body's view. The Chief Officer was therefore, directed to take immediate steps for filing appeal as a limitation for filing the appeal has expired. In response to the said memorandum dated 5th July 1990, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna submitted his views by the letter dated 13th July 1990 and showed willingness to incur the expenses of filing appeals. Besides writing this letter, no further action was taken by the Chief Officer Municipal Council, Jalna for that matter by the council, even though the government has taken decision on 21st July 1996 to file appeals. In view of these undisputed fact, it was necessary for the council to show to this Court that the council has complied the formalities of filing appeals by providing expenses of the appeals, but nothing is stated in the writ petition, nor any statement is made that the amount of Court fee was sent to the government to enable it to file appeals and in spite of compliance, no appeals are filed. From the prayer Clause 'D' it is clear that on the date of filing of writ petition, only intention was spelt out by way of interim prayer and that to payment of Court fee in the event of success in the writ petitions. Obviously it shows that the council was not ready to pay Court fee. That apart as the Law and Judiciary, on 21st July 1990 has decided to file appeal. No record is produced before us even at the time of final hearing of the petitions, whether in fact appeals were filed or not as on today we are not concerned with that. Therefore, one thing is very clear that the Council had the knowledge of the decision of the Civil Court, so then it should have filed an appeal by seeking leave of this Court as it is ruled by the Apex Court in Gyan Devi's case (supra):

"22. In case the amount of compensation has been enhanced by the Court and no appeal is filed by the government, the local authority is adversely affected by such enhancement may file an appeal with the leave of the Court. This right of the local authority does not depend on its being impleaded as a party in proceedings before the reference Court. Even if the local authority is not impleaded as a party before the reference Court, it can file an appeal against the award of the reference Court in the High Court after obtaining leave if it is prejudicially affected by the award. In case the government files an appeal against the enhancement of the award the local authority is entitled to support the said appeal and get itself impleaded as a party. When the person having an interest in the land files an appeal in the High Court against the award of the reference Court and seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation, the local authority should be impleaded as a party in the said appeal and it is entitled to be served with the notice of the said appeal so that it can defend the award of the reference Court and oppose enhancement of the amount of compensation before the High Court. The same will be the situation in case of an appeal to this Court from the decision of the High Court."

Apart from the above observation, even the council who felt aggrieved by the decision should have filed independent appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, after obtaining leave from this Court, instead it has filed these writ petitions.

17. On the facts produced before us, we are of the view that the petitioner could have filed application for leave to file appeals, but for best known reasons, the Municipal Council has not chosen to file appeals, instead of filing appeal, the present writ petitions are filed. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the council has not chosen to file appeals against the judgment and award passed by the Civil Court in the 12 references but has filed these writ petitions. On the facts of these case, it will not be possible for us to entertain these writ petitions and grant relief to the council and as such references are already decided therefore, no relief can be granted to the council.

18. Considering another aspect of the matter as per the law declared by the Apex Court in Gyan Devi's case, as to the remedy to the acquiring body, the Apex Court has made the following observations :

"3. The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L. A. Act. Since the amount of the compensation is to be paid by the local authority and it has an interest in the determination of the said amount, which has been given recognition in Section 50(2) of the L. A. Act, the local authority would be a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to assail the award in spite of the proviso precluding the local authority from seeking a reference. In a case where the local authority has failed to appear in spite of service of notice the local authority can have no cause for grievance. Even in such a case it may be permissible for the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to assail the award if it is vitiated by mala fides or is perverse."

19. In the entire petition, no allegation of mala fide are made or pleaded even the learned counsel was not able to demonstrate the perversity in the judgment of the Civil Court. What we notice from the contention of the petition that only one grievance is made that neither notice is served on the council, nor council is made party in the proceedings. On this aspect, we have rejected the contention of the learned counsel, considered the scope of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the contrary, we have come to the conclusion that the council has knowledge of the judgment of the Civil Court and it has failed to file any application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Civil Court. Apart from the ratio of Gyan Devi's case (supra) even under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code the council could have filed appeals with leave of this Court, as no such step is taken by the council, no relief can be granted.

No other points are raised by the learned counsel Shri Mundhe.

20. We find no substance in these petitions. Petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No orders as to costs.