1. Dispute over compensation and land allotment following the variation of a Town Planning Scheme under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. BOPANNA, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others – Appellants
Versus
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 16956-16957 of 2017
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Thakkar, Adv. Mr. . Mrugen Purohit, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Thakkar, Adv. Mr. . Mrugen Purohit, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
The acceptance of compensation for a land shortfall under a Town Planning Scheme without protest bars further claims for compensation or land allotment after the scheme's variation.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 40, 45, 54, 67, 71, 82, and 105 - Town Planning Scheme - Compensation for land - Plaintiffs claimed compensation for land shortfall due to Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, and sought allotment of land - The High Court upheld the Corporation's appeal, stating that the plaintiffs accepted the compensation without protest and could not claim further compensation or land allotment after the scheme's variation. (Paras 1-42)
(B) Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - The suit was deemed maintainable, but the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence for their claims, leading to dismissal of their appeal. (Paras 6, 12, 40)
(C) Acceptance of Compensation - Acceptance of compensation for the shortfall without protest barred further claims regarding the original plot. (Paras 15, 41)
(D) Evidence Requirement - Plaintiffs did not adduce evidence to support their claims for compensation, leading to dismissal of their appeal. (Paras 35, 41) (E) Variation of Town Planning Scheme - The variation of the Town Planning Scheme extinguished the plaintiffs' rights under the original scheme. (Paras 32, 38)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs claimed entitlement to original plot area or compensation for shortfall; Corporation argued the varied scheme was valid and accepted without protest. (Para 6 , 13 )
3. Variation of a scheme extinguishes previous rights; plaintiffs failed to prove market value for damages or challenge the variation within the statutory framework. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
4. Variation of a Town Planning Scheme under Section 71 extinguishes rights in previous plots; no guaranteed right exists to a reconstituted plot of a specific area. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 34 , 37 , 38 )
5. Appeals dismissed; judgment of the High Court allowing the first appeal and non-suiting the plaintiffs upheld. (Para 42 )
6. Does the failure of a first appellate court to separately frame points for determination vitiate the judgment under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?
No, provided the court records reasons based on evidence and deals with all issues that arise. Substantial compliance is sufficient if the second appellate court can ascertain the findings and justice has not suffered. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
7. What is the legal effect of varying a Town Planning Scheme under Section 71 of the Act of 1976?
A subsequent scheme made, published, and sanctioned under the Act can vary a previous scheme. Upon such variation, rights in the earlier plots stand extinguished and cannot form the basis for a later cause of action. (Para 21 , 34 , 38 )
8. Is a plot owner guaranteed a reconstituted plot of the same area after surrendering land for a Town Planning Scheme?
No. A plot owner is not guaranteed a reconstituted plot in lieu of surrendered land, let alone one of the same area. If no plot is provided, the owner is entitled only to compensation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 37 )
9. How is compensation determined for property injuriously affected by a Town Planning Scheme?
Compensation is estimated by the Town Planning Officer based on claims made within the prescribed time. The value is deemed to be the market value on the date of declaration of intention or notification. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 35 )
1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 18.06.2013 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 3596 of 2009 and Cross-Objection No. 81 of 2010 in First Appeal No. 3596 of 2009. Thereby, the Division Bench allowed the first appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (for brevity ‘the Corporation’) and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the respondents in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the said respondents filed these appeals.
2. The Corporation filed the aforestated first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008 passed by a learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 4583 of 1998. The said suit was filed by the appellants herein against the Corporation seeking compensation of Rs. 1,63,97,673/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. or, in the alternative, allotment of land, i.e. an extent of 974 sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of Ahmedabad.
3. The suit averments of the appellants (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’) were as follows:
The plaintiffs’ father was the owner of original Plot Nos. 144, 150/P and 151/P in Survey Nos. 155, 209 and 210/P respectively, admeasuring 19823 sq. yds./16575 sq. mts. While so, the Corporation prepared Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1976’). The scheme came into force from 01.08.1963, whereupon the plaintiffs’ father was required to contribute 21.40% of his lands, i.e. 4247 sq. yds./3552 sq. mts. to the Corporation for public purposes. For the remaining extent of 15576 sq. yds./13023 sq. mts. the Corporation allotted two separate final plots, viz. Final Plot No. 478, admeasuring 11686 sq. yds./9771 sq. mts. and Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring 3890 sq. yds./3252 sq. mts. The vacant possession of Final Plot No. 478 was delivered to the plaintiffs’ father but the Corporation failed to deliver possession of Final Plot No. 463 owing to its occupation by slum dwellers. Town Planning Scheme No. 6 was varied thereafter in 1983 but without any alternative plot being allotted in lieu of Final Plot No. 463. The Corporation then prepared a second varied scheme in the year 1986, viz. Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi (second varied), which came into force on 26.04.1991. Thereunder, Final Plot No. 463 was taken back for the purpose of slum upgradation and the plaintiffs were offered Final Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2724 sq. yds./2278 sq. mts. In effect, the land allotment in their favour was reduced by 974 sq. mts. when compared with the area of the initially allotted plot. The plaintiffs claimed that they were offered meagre compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mt. for the deducted area of 974 sq. mts, though the value of the land in 1991 was about Rs. 6000/- per sq. mt. in Paldi area. Even after the second variation of the scheme, in which Final Plot No. 187 was allotted to them, the Corporation failed to give vacant possession thereof, due to litigation between the Corporation and the occupant of the said plot. Ultimately, the Corporation was able to handover possession of Final Plot No. 187 to them only on 31.01.1996, after the litigation came to an end. Thus, from 01.08.1963, the date on which Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi (Principal Scheme), came into force, the plaintiffs were deprived of possession and enjoyment of 3890 sq. yds. of land, as was promised initially, as the Corporation was not in a position to allot the said land to them and on 31.01.1996, they were finally delivered possession of Final Plot No. 187 admeasuring only 2278 sq. mts. The compensation awarded to them for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mt. was an eye wash in view of the prevailing prices of land in Paldi area in the year 1991. The plaintiffs stated that they were, therefore, constrained to sue for compensation for the damages suffered by them due to the
