SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, R.B. MISRA, AND V. KHALID, JJ.
Prakash Amichand Shah, Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.1224 of 1977
Decided on 20-12-1985.
JUDGMENT
VENKATARAMIAH, J.:— This appeal by Special leave is preferred against the judgment dated September 3, 1976 in Special Civil Application No. 1501 of 1976 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in which the appellant had challenged the constitutional validity of the Town Planning Scheme No. VIII (Umarwada) in respect of certain lands situated at Surat City in the State of Gujarat, published under the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in so far as the said scheme pertained to the land of which the appellant was the lessee, alleging inter alia that it was violative of Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution of India.
2. The land in question originally belonged to one Ladli Begum. She granted a lease in, respect of the said land in favour of a company called Nawab of Belha Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Mills Ltd. under a document dated November 15, 1882 for a period of 99 years with effect from November 1, 1881 with a right of renewal for a further period of 99 years. The land was described as the land bearing Survey Nos. 75, 81, 83, 84 and 86 measuring in all 49 acres 22 gunthas. The company which had taken the land on lease executed a sub-lease in respect of 38 acres 2 gunthas out of the entire plot of land on March 29, 1884 in favour of ore Dr. Nassurwanji N. Khambata for the residuary period of 99 years without the right of renewal. This sublease was to expire on October 31, 1980. Under a document dated April 30, 1928 Surat Parsi Panchayat Board acquired the lease in respect of the entire 38 acres 2 gunthas, referred to above, from a lady who was the daughter of one Rustamji who had acquired the rights of Dr. Nassurwanji N. Khambata. On May 24, 1937 the appellant purchased the right, title and interest of the head lessee, i.e., Nawab of Belha Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Mills Ltd., in an auction sale held in the course of liquidation proceedings of the said company. The appellant thus became the head lessee of the entire plot of land with the rights specified in the document dated November 15, 1882, referred to above. Surat Parsi Panchayat Board which had acquired the right of the sub-lessee in respect of 38 acres 2 gunthas created a further sub-lease in respect of 34 acres 4 gunthas out of the 38 acres 2 gunthas in favour of the Surat Municipal Corporation under a document dated March 30, 1963 retaining the sub-lessees right in the remaining land.
3. The Surat Borough Municipality passed a resolution on August 2, 1963 to prepare a Draft Development Plan for the entire area within the municipal limits of Surat City in accordance with the Development Regulations issued by it with the object of checking haphazard growth of the city. Pursuant to the said resolution, a notification was issued on April 3, 1965 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire a portion of the entire plot of land admeasuring 34 acres 4 gunthas in Survey Nos. 75, 81 and 82 for the purpose of setting up an industrial estate by the Surat Borough Municipality, Surat which involved the shifting of Municipal Workshops and Central Stores.. On June 22, 1965 the Surat Borough Municipality made a declaration declaring its intention to prepare a Town Planning Scheme, being the Town Planning Scheme No. VIII of Umarwada in respect of the locality called Umarwada under S. 22 of the Act. The Municipality however could not make and publish the draft scheme within 12 months from the declaration of its intention as required by S. 23(1) of the Act. The State Government, however, by its Notification dated August 31, 1966 in exercise of its power under the proviso to S. 23(1) extended the period. for making and publishing the draft scheme by six months. The Municipality could not make and publish the draft scheme even within that extended period of six months. Then under sub-section (2) of S. 23 of the Act the Collector of Surat was aut
followed : State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas
relied on : Maneklal Chhotalal v. M.G. Makwana
followed : State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas
distinguished and limited : Nagpm Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao
distinguished : State of Kerala v. T.M. Peter
P.C. Goswami v. Collector of Darrang
relied on : Babubhai and Co. v. State of Gujarat
referred to : Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat
explained : P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Deputy Collector
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
State of Kamataka v. Ranganatha Reddy
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.