SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Guj) 125

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.V.JANI, J.M.PANCHAL
Gajanan Maganlal Parikh - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Dana Pith - Respondent
Civil 2337 of 1980
Decided On : 04/16/1991

Advocates Appeared: B.R.SHAH, S.M.Shelat

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regu-lation) Act, 1976 – Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 – Section 3 – local Town Planning Act – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 10 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Compensation – Petitioners who were originally the members of a Hindu Undivided family and who after partition became the owners of different portions of land of the Town Planning Scheme, reconstituted from Survey part of Khokhra Mehmedabad locality, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Consti-tution of India for obtaining a declaration that the designation and reservation of the said plots for the purpose of respondent Municipal Corporation for housing has lapsed and that the petitioners are free to develop or deal with the said plots as per their wishes and in the alternative they have prayed for an appropriate writ directing the res-pondents to acquire the petitioners lands which were reserved by the respondent Municipal Corporation in the final develop-ment plan in accordance with the provisions of the local Town Planning Act read with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or to abide by the agreement of sale-purchase that had been reached inter se between the parties as per Municipal resolution – Held, Court would derive some analogy from the Judgments of the Supreme Court. In H. D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 866, their Lordships observed that the Government cannot under the guise of requisition conti-nued for an indefinite period of time, in substance acquire the property, because that would be a fraud on the power conferred on the Government – In that case the order of requisition was held to have ceased to be valid even though it was valid when made as it continued for an unreasonable long period of 30 years – In the present case the facts are not on all fours, but the reservation has obviously continued for a period of 25 years since the Government sanctioned the development plan – Court make it clear that we are not led away in any manner by the concepts of requisition and acquisition as discussed by the Honourable Supreme Court – But Court is of the view that neither the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. L. Gupte (AIR 1968 SC 303) (supra) nor the provisions of the Urban Land Act justify the inaction on the part of the respondents. Respondent No. 1 Corporation has admittedly taken steps in the direction of acquiring the land and it is now for respondent No. 2 State of Gujarat to take further steps for acquisition of land and determination of compensation, in order to put an end to the uncertainty faced by the petitioners – Order Accordingly

JANI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners who were originally the members of a Hindu Undivided family and who after partition became the owners of different portions of land bearing final plots Nos. 951 and 952 of the Town Planning Scheme, Ahmedabad (Khokhra Mehmedabad Extension) No. XXV reconsti-tuted from Survey Nos. 253/1 and 254 part of Khokhra Mehmedabad locality, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Consti-tution of India for obtaining a declaration that the designation and reservation of the said plots for the purpose of respondent Municipal Corporation for housing has lapsed and that the petitioners are free to develop or deal with the said plots as per their wishes and in the alternative they have prayed for an appropriate writ directing the res-pondents to acquire the petitioners lands which were reserved by the respondent Municipal Corporation in the final develop-ment plan in accordance with the provisions of the local Town Planning Act read with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or to abide by the agreement of sale-purchase that had been reached inter se between the parties as per Municipal resolution dated 4/09/1974.

( 2 ) THE following facts emerging from the record appear to be undisputed. The respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation prepared a development plan for the City of Ahmedabad in discharge of its obligation cast upon it by Section 3 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, herein-after referred to as "the Bombay T. P. Act". The development plan was submitted to the State Government and after consulting the Consulting Surveyor the State Government sanctioned the development plan in exercise of its power conferred by Section 10 of the said Act. Annexure A to the petition is the Notification dated 21/08/1965 issued by the Government in Panchayats and Health Department sanctioning the development plan and fixing first day of October 1965 as the date on which the plan was to come into force. The said development plan inter alia provided for reservation of the petitioners lands for the purposes of housing, and they were later on reconstituted into final plots Nos. 951 and 952.

( 3 ) THE portion of the land bearing Survey No. 260 which was in the neighbourhood of the petitioners land was also reserved for housing purposes in the said development plan. The owner of the said land and petitioner No. 1 also approached the Muni-cipal Authorities requesting them to purchase their land by private negotiations. After some personal discussion and negotiations the administrator of the respondent Municipal Corporation agreed to purchase the peti-tioners land at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per sq. yd. and the part of Survey No. 260 at Rs. 10. 00 per sq. yd. This understanding was recorded by the first petitioner in his letter dated 30/07/1974, and the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation confirmed the agreement and understanding by the resolution dated 4/09/1974, which is produced at Annexure B to the petition.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER the Estate Officer of the respondent Municipal Corporation by his letter dated 13-10-1974, Annexure C, called upon the petitioner No. 1 to obtain per-mission of the Collector under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in view of the fact that the lands bearing Survey Nos. 352 and 254 were agricultural lands and they were to be purchased for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner No. 1, therefore, applied to the sdeputy Collector of Ahmedabad for permission to sell the land in question to the respondent Corporation for non-agricultural use, and the Deputy Collector by his order dated 5-2-1975, Annexure D, was pleased to grant requisite permission under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

( 5 ) IT is, therefore, obvious that the res-pondent Municipal Corporation proceeded to some extent in the direction to purchase the land by negotiation and at their request the petitioner had obtained the permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy an
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top