2001 Supreme(Guj) 211

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.C.PATEL, R.K.Abichandani
SURAT PANJRAPOLE - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
L.P.A. 576 of 1999
Decided On : 03/27/2001

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 14, 19 (1) (f) and 300-A, 243-W, 14 - India Act, 1955 - Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 65 (3), section 67 (a) sub-section (2) of section 42 - Bombay Town Planning Act - Section 32 (1) (iii) - Letter Patent Appeal - Clause 65 (2) (b) - Special Civil Application was referred by the learned Single Judge on to a Division Bench and by order dated was required to be heard with the Letters Patent Appeal - Planning Schemes can be handed over by the appropriate authority which in the present case is the Municipal Corporation for development to other authorities for their use for setting up telephone exchange or offices of the banks and of and as to whether such entrustment amounts to variation or change in the Scheme - Municipal Corporation to withdraw its decision contained in the resolution passed by the Standing Committee at Annexure `b to that petition by which it was resolved to lease out the lands of final plot sub-plots to the Banks and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as mentioned therein for development on the terms and conditions determined by the Corporation in its General Meeting dated and further prayed for de-reserving the said final plot no. M/4 from the reservation made for in the Town Planning Scheme and to restore the same to the petitioner - Trust. 3. 1 Special Civil Application has been filed by a Power of Attorney of the original owners of survey raising a similar challenge against the leasing out of the land of final plot of the Town Planning Scheme which was reserved for to the Telecommunication Department for putting up a Telephone Exchange and seeking a direction for setting aside the resolution at Annexure `h to that petition, passed by the Standing Committee of the respondent - Held, Event is irreversible and no such land can be traced by the original owner in the hands of the appropriate authority which alone can deal with it in exercise of its powers and functions under section 23 of the Act - Even when the appropriate authority is dissolved by a notification issued by the State Government under section of the Act all properties which are vested in the appropriate authority shall vest in the State Government as provided in sub-section of section - Appellants and the petitioners would be nowhere in picture to pitch any claim even if the land is not actually put to use or is used through some other agency under an arrangement or contract with the appropriate authority for creating a sub-center for any such activity as of establishing commercial offices telephone exchange banks or providing other conveniences which can be provided in a commercial center - Contention that the proprietary rights of the petitioners are violated is therefore wholly misconceived - Authority could have itself put to use the land earmarked for the public purpose of a sub-centre involving any of the activities which may be provided in a commercial centre but it could legitimately cause the same to be used by other authorities for such activities which include commercial offices telephone exchange or other public utility offices - Appellants and the petitioners of these two cases have no right to insist that the local authority should itself put the lands in question to such use or that they cannot be given for such use to the Telecommunication Department the Banks or the Indian Oil Corporation - They also do not have any right to claim these lands on any ground whatsoever - Restoration of land which vested in the appropriate authority and the power of attorney holder of the petitioners of Special Civil Application empowered its holder to get the land deserve by fling litigation though there was no statutory provision to deserve the lands which have vested in the appropriate authority under the Act and the town planning schemes were never challenged by these parties litigations are therefore purely speculative and have resulted in delaying the use of the lands in furtherance of the schemes - Appellants and the petitioners of these two cases must therefore bear the cost of such frivolous litigation, which is quantified to be paid by the appellant of the Letters Patent Appeal and to be paid by the petitioners of Special Civil Application to the respondent - Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed.