Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Maneklal Chhotalal and others, Petitioners
Versus
M. G. Makwana and others, Respondents.
Advocate-General for the State of Maharashtra, Intervener.
Writ Petn. No. 64 of 1966,
D/- 2-3-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Tricumlal J. Patel and I. N. Shroff, Advocates , with him), for Petitioners; M/s. H. D. Banajee, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayyar Advocates, for Respondents (Nos.1, 3 and 4), Mr. Purshottamam Trikamdas. Senior Advocate, (Mr. Vithalbhai Patel. Advocate, and M/s. O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for :Respondent No. 2, Mr. D. R. Prem. Senior Advocate. (Mr. S. P. Nayyar. Advocate, with him), for the Intervener.
BOMBAY TOWN PLANNING ACT - CONSTITUTIONALITY - VALIDITY - COMPETENCY OF STATE LEGISLATURE - REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 31 - INTERPRETATION OF ENTRIES 6, 18 OF LIST II AND ENTRY 20 OF LIST III OF THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (Bombay Act XXVII of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act), as originally framed, and also after its amendment by the Bombay Town Planning (Gujarat Amendment And Validating Provisions) Act, 1963 (Gujarat Act LII of 1963) (hereinafter called the Amending Act). They also challenged and sought to have quashed, all action and proceedings that have been taken by the respondents, under the Act, in relation to the Town Planning Scheme, No. 19 (Memnagar ), Ahmedabad.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Legislature was competent to enact the Act in question, either on the basis of Entry No. 18 of List II or on Entry No. 20 of List III, of the Seventh Schedule. The Court further held that the Act imposed only reasonable restrictions, in which case, it is saved under Art. 19(5) of the Constitution. The Court also held that there was no deprivation of property, therefore, so as to attract Art. 31.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Legislature was competent to enact the Act in question? 2. Whether the Act imposed reasonable restrictions, in which case, it is saved under Art. 19(5) of the Constitution? 3. Whether there was deprivation of property, therefore, so as to attract Art. 31?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Legislature was competent to enact the Act in question, either on the basis of Entry No. 18 of List II or on Entry No. 20 of List III, of the Seventh Schedule. The Court relied on the decisions in Sri Ram Narain v. State of Bombay, (1959) Supp 1 SCR 489 and Navinchandra Mafatlal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, 1955-1 SCR 829 to interpret the entries in the Seventh Schedule. 2. The Court held that the Act imposed only reasonable restrictions, in which case, it is saved under Art. 19(5) of the Constitution. The Court referred to the principles laid down in various cases to determine the reasonableness of the restrictions. 3. The Court held that there was no deprivation of property, therefore, so as to attract Art. 31. The Court observed that though the petitioners may have lost a fairly large extent of land, which, according to them, amounts to deprivation, the reconstituted plots, though of a lesser area, have a higher value, as building sites, in view of the various improvements and amenities provided under the Town Planning scheme.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs of the respondents, one set.
Judgement
VAIDIALlNGAM, J. : In this writ petition, under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (Bombay Act XXVII of 1955) (hereinafter called the Act), as originally framed, and also after its amendment. by the Bombay Town Planning (Gujarat Amendment And Validating Provisions) Act, 1963 (Gujarat Act LII of 1963) (hereinafter called the Amending Act). They also challenge and seek to have quashed, all action and proceedings that have been taken by the respondents, under the Act, in relation to the Town Planning Scheme, No. 19 (Memnagar ), Ahmedabad.
2. The circumstances under which the petitioners have come to this Court may be briefly indicated. The petitioners, who are stated to be members of a Hindu Undivided Family, owned certain extent of lands in two areas viz., Usmanpur Section and Wadej Section. In the former, they claim to have owned lands bearing survey numbers 41/1, 42/2, 42, 51/1, 51/2 and 43 referred to as plot Nos. 22 and 22-A, measuring 65, 164 sq. yds. In Wadej Section, again, they owned 14,520 sq. yds., in survey Nos. 106, 3/1, 106/4, referred to as plot No. 195. Both these sections are within the jurisdiction of the second respondent herein, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
3. The second respondent, by resolution No. 475, dated August 20, 1959, declared its intention to make a Town Planning Scheme No. 19 (Memnagar), under S. 22 (1) of the Act, in respect of certain areas of land, which included the above mentioned lands of the petitioners. The said declaration was published in the Bombay Government Gazette, dated September 3, 1959. A notification was issued on November 16, 1959, stating that the second respondent was preparing a Draft Town Planning Scheme, and stating that interested persons may appear before the Town Planning Committee, on December 2, 1959, at 4 p. m., for the purpose of having the proposals contained in the Scheme explained to the public and to elicit suggestions from the public with regard to those proposals.
4. The petitioners appeared before the said Committee, on December 2, 1959, and raised certain objections, and also offered some suggestions for modifying the Scheme. Written objections were also submitted by the petitioners, on or about January 9, 1960, to the Town Planning Committee. The petitioners pointed out that in Usmanpur and Wadej Sections they owned lands to the extent, approximately, of 70,180 sq. yds., but in the proposals as contained in the Draft Scheme they were expected to get only 19,087 sq. yds., and, as such, they stood to lose nearly 72 per cent of their lands. They also pointed out that they had been made liable to pay a heavy contribution of Rs. 30, 137/-. The petitioners suggested that the loss to each land-owner, should be equitably distributed under the Scheme and that they should be allotted lands of equal extent.
5. On June 13, 1960, a draft Town Planning Scheme was prepared under S. 23 (1) of the Act, and it was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette, dated June 23, 1960. The petitioners, again, submitted the same objections, which they had placed, for consideration, before the Town Planning Committee. After considering the objections and suggestions made by the petitioners, the second respondent forwarded the Draft Town Planning Scheme to the third respondent, the State of the Gujarat, under S. 28 (1) of the Act. The third respondent, again, sanctioned the said Draft Scheme, under S. 28 (1) of the Act and also appointed a Town Planning Officer, under S. 31 (1) of the Act. Subsequently, there was a charge in the personnel of the Town Planning Officer, originally appointed. Ultimately, the Town Planning Officer issued a public notice in October 1961, inviting objections and suggestions from owners of lands, in respect of the Draft Town Planning Scheme, which was being considered by him.
6. The petitioners again, filed objections in November 1961, before the said Town Plan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
