IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M.CHHAYA, BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ.
PASHUPALAK VIKAS SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 866 of 2021 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12552 of 2016 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 24-12-2021
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Sections 65(3), 70, 71, 48(2), 50, 64 71 read with 41(1), 48(2), 50, 64, 68, 41, 77 and sub-section (1) of section 79 - Power of appropriate authority to resolve on declaration of intention to make scheme - Allotment of land - Town Planning Scheme - Notification - Petition is filed by Cooperative Society through its Chairman/Secretary who are original petitioners - Case of original petitioners that based upon Resolution - scheme for organization of cooperative societies for cooperative cattle breeding and farming society for the improvement of nomadic professional cattle breeders - Social betterment of cattle breeders, a scheme was floated and under such scheme the original petitioners were allotted land bearing survey - It is say of petitioners that petitioners are in possession of lands in question - Town Planning Scheme being Town Planning Scheme was published and prepared and lands in question were included in Town Planning Scheme (Nava same was allotted Final Plot said preliminary Town Planning Scheme came to be sanctioned under he provisions of Act, 1976 - Held, Petition is filed only to throttle implementation of validly published, prepared and sanctioned Town Planning Scheme wherein the land in question is reserved for public purpose of slum upgradation, which is need of hour - Even weighing public interest enshrined for very purpose for which it has been reserved, does not call for any interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court – Court do not find any error, which requires any variation. As rightly held by learned Single Judge, no case for variation under Section 70 has been made out by appellants and even at cost of repetition, it deserves to be noted that impugned notice under Section 67 is misread by appellants as appellants have been granted compensation lieu of their original plot - Powers under Section 70 for variation of scheme is only limited to correct an error, irregularity or informality and scheme which has become part of Act way back in year 1998 does not require any variation under Section 70 of the Act - Civil Application also stands disposed of - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R.M.CHHAYA, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 31.08.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram : Bhargav D. Karia, J.), the appellants-original petitioners have preferred this intra court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal –
2.1 The petition is filed by the Cooperative Society through its Chairman/Secretary who are the original petitioners. It is the case of the original petitioners that based upon the Resolution dated 07.05.1956 passed by the then State of Bombay, under the scheme for organization of cooperative societies for cooperative cattle breeding and farming society for the improvement of nomadic professional cattle breeders, especially for economic and social betterment of cattle breeders, a scheme was floated and under such scheme the original petitioners were allotted land bearing survey nos. 457/1 and 457/2 at village Nava Wadaj, Taluka Sabarmati, District Ahmedabad. It is the say of the petitioners that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question. The lands in question became part of the local limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. A Town Planning Scheme being Town Planning Scheme No. 28 (Nava Wadaj) was published and prepared and the lands in question were included in the Town Planning Scheme No.28 (Nava Wadaj)area. In the said Town Planning Scheme, lands bearing Survey Nos. 457/1 and 457/2 were given Original Plot No. 101 and on it being reconstituted, the same was allotted Final Plot No. 330. The said preliminary Town Planning Scheme came to be sanctioned under the provisions of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the same of brevity) vide notification dated 12.12.1980 and it came into force as provided under Section 65(3) of the Act on 27.01.1981 and thereafter, Final Town Planning Scheme was also sanctioned on 05.04.1982, which came into force from 25.05.1982.
2.2 The Town Planning Committee of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation proposed a variation in the Town Planning Scheme No. 28 (Nava Wadaj) under Section 71 of the Act. The intention to vary the scheme was declared under Section 71 read with Section 41(1) of the Act, which also included the lands in question and such intention to vary the scheme was published in Government Gazette as per Rule 16 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules” for the sake of brevity) on 16.02.1985. As provided under Rule 17 of the Rules, the said notification was published in Gujarati daily “Jai Hind” and a notice was also given to the original petitioners on 11.03.1986 asking the petitioners to remain present before the authority. However, as per the record, no one remained present.
2.3 The record indicates that thereafter, a notice under section 41 was published on 27.07.1986 in local daily newspaper “Times of India” and the notice was also published in the extraordinary Official Gazette of Government of Gujarat on 25.07.1986 along with draft scheme inviting objections. It is a matter of record that the original petitioners did not file any objection. The State Government sanctioned the draft Town Planning Scheme (First Varied) under section 48(2) of the Act on 26.03.1987 and the Town Planning Officer was appointed thereafter as provided under Section 50 of the Act. The Town Planning officer, on his appointment, undertook the procedure as prescribed under Rules 26(2) and 26(3) of the Rules and also gave notice to the Petitioners on 19.11.1992 to provide necessary documents and representation with regard to the proposal made in the Town Planning Scheme. The record shows that as the said notice could not be served, the same was affixed at the site with signature of two persons. However, no representation or objections were filed by the petitioners. The Town Planning Officer thereafter undertook the procedure of de
Kaushikprasad Chandulal Mahadevia v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 1970 GLR 993
Mohanlal Jesinghbhai v. P.J. Patel reported in 1970 GLR 1035
Saiyed Mohammed v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported in 1977 GLR 549
M/s. Babubhai & Co. and another v. State of Gujarat and others reported in (1985) 2 SCC 732
Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in (1981) 3 SCC 508
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.