The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair hearing and consideration of objections in town planning procedures, reinforcing compliance with established rules.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.

1. The present appeal is directed against a common judgment and order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing a bunch of writ petitions challenging the preliminary Town Planning Scheme on the premise that due opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioners therein. In a set of appeals arising out of the same judgment and order dated 17.06.2025 with the leading Letters Patent Appeal No.742 of 2025, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, we have passed the following orders:-

“1. These appeals are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the challenge to the drawing and preparation of preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.67 (Hansol - 1) by the Town Planning Officer was upturned. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The primary challenge to the preliminary Town Planning Scheme finalized by the Town Planning Officer is about the final plots allotted in the respective original plots of the petitioners and carving out of the Town planning road. The main ground of challenge to the decision of the Town Planning Officer is that though petitioners filed objections before the Town Planning Officer and the date was fixed for considering the objections but the petitioners were not granted due opportunity of hearing. The Town Planning Officer acted in haste and in non-compliance of the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by this Court in the writ petition in finalizing the preliminary town planning scheme. The petitioners’ right to raise objection to the proposed preliminary Town Planning Scheme prior to issuance of the notification under Rule 26 (9) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Development Rules, 1979 (for short, “the Rules’ 1979”) has been taken away.

3. Much reliance has been placed on the provision of Rule 26(4) by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants to argue that it was the duty of the Town Planning Officer to give every person interested in any land affected by any particular of scheme sufficient opportunity of stating their views and consider their representations before issuing notification under Rule 26(9). The reference was made to Rule 26(5) to submit that if during the proceedings while hearing on the representations, if the Town Planning Officer finds that there are conflicting claims or any difference of opinion with regard to any part of the scheme, he shall record the points at issue and necessary particulars in his own handwriting in a brief minute and shall give a decision with the reasons therefor. All such minutes shall have to be appended to the scheme while forwarding it to the State Government for approval. Rule 26(6) further mandates the Town Planning Officer to record and enter in the scheme any decision given by him.

4. The submission is that valuable rights of the petitioners for considerations of their representations/objections as prescribed in the rules framed under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for short, “the Town Planning Act’ 1976”) have been taken away. The Town Planning Officer not only committed breach of the Rule 26, particularly Rule 26(4) of the Rules’ 1979, but also has not followed the provision of Section 52(2)(x) of the Town Planning Act’ 1976 while preparing and / or drawing the preliminary Town Planning Scheme, when the scheme was under preparation and to be notified after disposal of the objections.

5. To bring forth the circumstances before the Court that the petitioners were not granted opportunity of hearing, it was contended tha