Judgment

GUPTA, J.:- On June 26, 1965 the Surat Municipal Corporation, then called Surat Borough Municipality, declared its intention to make a town planning scheme under Section 22 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as the Act). This was Town Planning Scheme Surat No. 8 (Umarwada). On July 4, 1967 a draft scheme was published which included among other lands an area admeasuring 1,37,961 square meters of which appellant as Karta of a Hindu undivided family was the lessee. On May 10, 1968 Government of Gujarat granted sanction to the draft scheme. Before the Town Planning Officer the appellant claimed compensation for deprivation of his right in the land at Rs. 50/- per square yard. By his order made on November 4, 1971 the Town Planning Officer awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 2.40 p. per square meter; the total compensation awarded was Rs. 3,31,456/-. Not satisfied with the decision of the Town Planning Officer the appellant preferred an appeal. Section 34 read with Sec. 32 (1) of the Act provides an appeal from the decision of the Town Planning Officer on certain specified matters to a Board of Appeal. Before the Board of Appeal the appellant reduced his claim to Rs. 9.50 p. per square meter. The appellants grievance was that the compensation awarded was inadequate and further that the apportionment of compensation between the lessor and the lessee was not proper. He also questioned the propriety of reserving such a large area of land for the scheme. The Board of Appeal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the Act did not provide an appeal from a decision of the Town Planning Officer on matters dealt with by him in his order dated November 4, 1971. The appellant then challenged the order of the Board of Appeal before the Gujarat High Court by filing a writ petition in which certain provisions of the Act were also challenged as unconstitutional and it was claimed that the town planning scheme was consequently invalid. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition agreeing with the Board of Appeal that the appeal was incompetent. The constitutional questions raised in the writ petition could not be decided as Emergency was then in force in the country and rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 & 31 of the Constitution on which the appellants contentions were based remained suspended at the time. The High Court also relied on the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Shri Shantilal Mangaldas (1969) 3 SCR 341 which had upheld the validity of the Act.

2. The appeal before us is by special leave. Mr. Nariman for the appellant submitted that in case we held that the appeal preferred by his client before the Board of Appeal was maintainable he would not press the grounds questioning the constitutional validity of the Act at this stage and the matter should then go back to the Board of Appeal for a decision on the adequacy of the Compensation; if however we found that the Board of Appeal was right in holding that the appeal was not maintainable, he would then urge the grounds challenging the validity of the Act.

3. The question is whether the order of the Town Planning Officer determining the amount of compensation payable to the appellant falls within any of the appealable clauses of Section 32 (1). To be able to answer the question it will be necessary to examine the various clauses of Section 32 (1) and also certain other provisions of the Act. The scheme of the Act has been analysed by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas (AIR 1969 SC 634) (supra) and earlier in Maneklal Chhottalal v. M. G. Makwana (1967) 3 SCR 65. We will not attempt another comprehensive survey of all the provisions of the Act but refer to those of them which have some bearing on the question that falls to be decided. Mr. Nariman drew our notice to the decision of the Court in State of Karnataka v. Shri Ranganatha Reddy (1978) 1 SCR 641 where Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court sa