B. K. MEHTA, J. B. MEHTA, S. OBUL REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THESE Special Civil Applications which are before us are dismissed with costs. The reasons will follow. Interim relief if any granted in each of these petitions is vacated. Rule discharged.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these petitions (except Special C. A. 1236/65) made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution. We are unable to certify that any substantial question of law of general importance which in our opinion requires to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in this batch of Special Civil Applications. Leave refused.

( 3 ) THESE petitions were disposed of by the order dated August 12 1976 as under:-THESE Special Civil Applications which are before us are dismissed with costs The reasons will follow. Interim relief if any granted in each of these petitions is vacated. Rule discharged the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these petitions (except Special C. A. 1236/65 made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution. We are unable to certify that any sub- stantial question of law of general importance which in our opinion requites to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in this batch of Special Civil Applications. Leave refused. We therefore now give our reasons for the said decision.

( 4 ) IN all these petitions the petitioners have been issued notices of eviction under sec 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 (herein after referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules 195 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) because their right to occupy their final plots in question had come to an end on the final town planning scheme having been sanctioned and as it became a legally binding enforceable scheme as if enacted in the Act itself under sec. 51 (3) of the Act. The petitioners have however challenged these notices on various grounds in these petitions inter alia (1) That the mandatory safeguard of individual notice having not been complied with under Rule 21 (3) and Rule 21 (4) at the time of reconstitution of their plots under sec. 32 (1) by the Town Planning Officer the scheme is ultra vires the Act. (2) That the eviction scheme under sec. 54 and Rule 27 could not be invoked in cases where a building is to be pulled down in view of the specific provision for such demolition made in sec 55 and Rule 28 providing for a specific demolition notice. (3) That in any event the eviction notice is ultra vires without first giving a show cause notice in accordance with the principles of natural justice as contemplated in the decision in MANGALJIBHAI ROOPAJIBHAI V. STATE (1972) 13 G. L. R. 649 by the Division Bench consisting of Bhagwati C. J. as he then was and T. U Mehta J. and without first judicially deciding the question of the occupation not being wrongful. (4) That in any event time of a few days allowed in such eviction notice was so short and unreasonable in the context of such eviction as to vitiate such eviction notice.

( 5 ) AS far as the first question was concerned it is completely conclude. by the Full Bench decision in Special Civil Application No. 1663 of 1970 decided on August 4 1976 (DUNGARLAL V. STATE. XVIII G. L. R. 1152) where the learned Chief Justice spoke for all of us It has been finally held in that decision that the two decisions in KAUSHIKPRASAD V. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (1970) 11 G. L. R. 993 AND MOHANLAL JESINGBHAI V. P. J. PATEL (1970) 11 G. L. R 1035 were wrongly decided to the extent that a right to individual notice under Rule 21 (3) and (4) was held to be so mandatory as to have a nullifying consequence It was in terms held that old sub-rule (3) and sub-rule (4) were merely additional procedural safeguards and were not the essential minimum requirements and the violation of such an additional procedural safeguard which was not in the nature of essen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document