The acceptance of compensation for a land shortfall under a Town Planning Scheme without protest bars further claims for compensation or land allotment after the scheme's variation.

1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 18.06.2013 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 3596 of 2009 and Cross-Objection No. 81 of 2010 in First Appeal No. 3596 of 2009. Thereby, the Division Bench allowed the first appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (for brevity ‘the Corporation’) and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the respondents in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the said respondents filed these appeals.

2. The Corporation filed the aforestated first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008 passed by a learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 4583 of 1998. The said suit was filed by the appellants herein against the Corporation seeking compensation of Rs. 1,63,97,673/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. or, in the alternative, allotment of land, i.e. an extent of 974 sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of Ahmedabad.

3. The suit averments of the appellants (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’) were as follows:

The plaintiffs’ father was the owner of original Plot Nos. 144, 150/P and 151/P in Survey Nos. 155, 209 and 210/P respectively, admeasuring 19823 sq. yds./16575 sq. mts. While so, the Corporation prepared Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1976’). The scheme came into force from 01.08.1963, whereupon the plaintiffs’ father was required to contribute 21.40% of his lands, i.e. 4247 sq. yds./3552 sq. mts. to the Corporation for public purposes. For the remaining extent of 15576 sq. yds./13023 sq. mts. the Corporation allotted two separate final plots, viz. Final Plot No. 478, admeasuring 11686 sq. yds./9771 sq. mts. and Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring 3890 sq. yds./3252 sq. mts. The vacant possession of Final Plot No. 478 was delivered to the plaintiffs’ father but the Corporation failed to deliver possession of Final Plot No. 463 owing to its occupation by slum dwellers. Town Planning Scheme No. 6 was varied thereafter in 1983 but without any alternative plot being allotted in lieu of Final Plot No. 463. The Corporation then prepared a second varied scheme in the year 1986, viz. Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi (second varied), which came into force on 26.04.1991. Thereunder, Final Plot No. 463 was taken back for the purpose of slum upgradation and the plaintiffs were offered Final Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2724 sq. yds./2278 sq. mts. In effect, the land allotment in their favour was reduced by 974 sq. mts. when compared with the area of the initially allotted plot. The plaintiffs claimed that they were offered meagre compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mt. for the deducted area of 974 sq. mts, though the value of the land in 1991 was about Rs. 6000/- per sq. mt. in Paldi area. Even after the second variation of the scheme, in which Final Plot No. 187 was allotted to them, the Corporation failed to give vacant possession thereof, due to litigation between the Corporation and the occupant of the said plot. Ultimately, the Corporation was able to handover possession of Final Plot No. 187 to them only on 31.01.1996, after the litigation came to an end. Thus, from 01.08.1963, the date on which Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi (Principal Scheme), came into force, the plaintiffs were deprived of possession and enjoyment of 3890 sq. yds. of land, as was promised initially, as the Corporation was not in a position to allot the said land to them and on 31.01.1996, they were finally delivered possession of Final Plot No. 187 admeasuring only 2278 sq. mts. The compensation awarded to them for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mt. was an eye wash in view of the prevailing prices of land in Paldi area in the year 1991. The plaintiffs stated that they were, therefore, constrained to sue for compensation for the damages suffered by them due to the