Supreme Court of India
MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERSversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 401
- Decided
- 10 May 2024
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A S BOPANNA
Holding
The High Court was justified in allowing the corporation’s appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs; the lack of formally framed points for determination does not invalidate the judgment, and the plaintiffs’ rights were extinguished upon variation of the scheme, their acceptance of the reduced plot and compensation precluding further claims.
Summary
The plaintiffs sued the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking either compensation for the loss of 974 square metres of land or, alternatively, an allotment of land of that size in any town planning scheme. The trial court granted the alternative relief of land allotment but rejected the compensation claim, prompting the corporation to appeal. The High Court allowed the corporation’s appeal, holding that the plaintiffs had accepted a smaller plot and compensation without protest, thereby extinguishing any right to further claim, and that the failure to formally frame points for determination under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC did not invalidate the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 is sufficient and that the variation of the town planning scheme under Sections 70 and 71 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, extinguished the plaintiffs’ earlier rights. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision.
Issues considered
- Whether the omission to frame points for determination under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC vitiates the appellate judgment.
- Whether the variation of a Town Planning Scheme under Sections 70 and 71 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 extinguishes the plaintiffs' right to the original plot and entitles them to an alternative allotment of 974 sq. mts.
- Whether the compensation of Rs.25 per sq. metre paid to the plaintiffs is adequate and whether they can claim higher compensation or damages.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ acceptance of the smaller plot and payment of compensation bars any further claim.
- Whether the plaintiffs could have invoked the appellate remedy under Section 54 of the Act of 1976.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 41 Rule 31
- Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976s. 105, s. 45, s. 52, s. 54, s. 67, s. 68, s. 70, s. 71, s. 81, s. 82, s. 84
- Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979
Subjects
Order 41 Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Town Planning and Urban DevelopmentTown Planning SchemeVariation of a Town Planning SchemeOriginal Town Planning SchemePlot owner surrendered land pursuant to Town Planning SchemeVacant possessionCompensationPoints for determination not framedAlternative plotSecond varied schemeAllotment of landCross-objectionFirst appellate CourtAllotment of a plot of lesser areaRight to a larger areaInitial allotmentReconstitution of plotsReduction in the reconstituted plot areaAllotment of a reconstituted plotRights in the earlier plots of land extinguishedMarket value of land in question at relevant point of time
Judgment
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 594 : 2024 INSC 401
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others
v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(Civil Appeal Nos. 16956-16957 of 2017)
10 May 2024
[A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Trial Court decreed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs by accepting
the alternative prayer that they should be allotted an extent of 974
sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of
Ahmedabad, but rejected the main prayer for compensation with
interest. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first
appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation and non-suiting the
plaintiffs; Impugned judgment if liable to be set aside as contended
by the plaintiffs, on the ground that no points for determination
were framed therein, as required by Order 41 Rule 31, Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 41, r.31 – Gujarat Town
Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 – ss.52, 54, 70, 71,
81, 82 – Plaintiffs’ father owner of various plots surrendered
land pursuant to a Town Planning Scheme – The Corporation
allotted two separate final plots out of which possession of one
was delivered to the plaintiffs’ father however, the possession
of the other plot i.e. Final Plot No.463 was not delivered – Town
Planning Scheme was varied later but without any alternative
plot being allotted in lieu of Final Plot No.463 – However, under
the second varied scheme, plaintiffs were offered Final Plot
No.187 which had a smaller area by 974 sq. mts., and as per
them they were offered meagre compensation @ ₹25/- per
sq. mt. for the deducted area of 974 sq. mts. – Suit filed by
plaintiffs against Corporation seeking compensation with
interest or, alternatively, for allotment of land, i.e., an extent
of 974 sq. mts., in any Town Planning Scheme in the western
zone of Ahmedabad – Suit decreed by Trial Court accepting the
alternative prayer, main prayer for compensation was rejected
– Appeal filed by the Corporation was allowed by High Court,
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 595
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs were rejected – Plea of the
plaintiffs inter alia that the judgment of the High Court is liable
to be set aside on the ground that no points for determination
were framed therein, as required by Or. 41, r.31 CPC:
Held: Mere omission to frame the points for determination would
not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that
the first appellate Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence
adduced by both parties – Thus, even if the first appellate Court
does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the
first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with
all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal –
Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC in
that regard is sufficient – High Court did set out all the issues framed
by the Trial Court in the body of the judgment and was, therefore,
fully conscious of all the points that it had to consider in the appeal –
Further, no particular issue that was considered by the Trial Court
was left out by the High Court while adjudicating the appeal – No
merit in the contention that the impugned judgment is liable to be
set aside on this preliminary ground, warranting reconsideration of
the first appeal by the High Court afresh – Furthermore, on merits,
plaintiffs, being well aware of the fact that Final Plot No. 187 allotted
to them under the second varied Town Planning Scheme, was of
lesser area, accepted the same without any protest and without
agitating a right to a larger area in the light of the initial allotment
of Plot No.463, and their conduct in depositing ₹24,350/- thereafter,
implying receipt of the compensation amount for the shortfall area
of 974 sq. mts. @ 25/- per sq. mt., foreclosed their right, if any, to
either challenge the allotment of a plot of lesser area or to seek
more compensation – Further, upon the preparation or variation
of a Town Planning Scheme, the rights in the earlier plots of land
would stand extinguished – Thus, such rights, if any, which became
extinct cannot be the basis for a later cause of action – Also, the
quantification of compensation @ 25/- per sq. mt. for the shortfall
area of 974 sq. mts., which is relatable to the power of the Town
Planning Officer u/s.52(3)(x), was a decision which was amenable
to appellate review u/s.54 however, admittedly the plaintiffs did not
avail such remedy – Plaintiffs’ claim for damages/compensation
was also not supported by material evidence – Further, as there
was never any guarantee that a plot owner who surrendered his
land pursuant to a Town Planning Scheme would be allotted any
land after reconstitution of the plots, the plaintiffs cannot assert
596 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
any vested right in that regard – High Court justified in allowing the
first appeal filed by the Corporation and non-suiting the plaintiffs
in entirety – Impugned judgment not interfered with. [Paras 29-31,
34, 35, 39, 41 and 42]
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 –
ss.70, 71 – Plaintiffs argued that variation of the Town Planning
Scheme as permitted u/ss.70 and 71 must be read together:
Held: No merit in this submission – Section 70 deals with the power
to vary a Town Planning Scheme on the ground of error, irregularity
or informality while Section 71 is general in nature and states that,
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 70, a Town Planning
Scheme may at any time be varied by a subsequent scheme made,
published and sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the Act
of 1976 – The very fact that Section 71 begins with a non-obstante
clause referring to Section 70, manifests that the power thereunder
is not fettered in any manner, unlike the power under Section 70
which can only be exercised on the grounds of error, irregularity or
informality – Further, Section 71 postulates that the variation of the
Town Planning Scheme is to be made, published and sanctioned
in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1976, which would
mean that the entire exercise would be undertaken afresh upon
such variation, including reconstitution of the plots under Section
45 – Therefore, further reduction of a plot notified in the original
Town Planning Scheme is implicit in the general power of variation
vesting in the authority under Section 71 of the Act of 1976. [Para 37]
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 –
Scheme – Chapter 5 – Town Planning Schemes – ss.40-76 –
Discussed.
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 –
s.45 – Reconstitution of plots – Plaintiffs contended that the
1976 Act does not contemplate a second reduction in the
reconstituted plot area:
Held: Said argument does not merit acceptance – Section 45 deals
with reconstitution of plots – A plot owner who has surrendered his
original land for the purposes of the Town Planning Scheme is not
even assured of allotment of a reconstituted plot in lieu thereof – In
such an event, he is entitled only to compensation – Therefore, there
is no guaranteed right vesting in a plot owner who surrendered his
land in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme that he would
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 597
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
be allotted another plot of land in lieu thereof, much less, a plot
of the same area – It is an admitted fact that, when the plaintiffs’
father surrendered an extent of 19823 sq. yds./16575 sq. mts., he
was allotted a lesser extent of 15576 sq. yds./13023 sq. mts in two
plots in the original Town Planning Scheme, with a deduction of
21.40% – As there was never any guarantee that a plot owner who
surrendered his land pursuant to a Town Planning Scheme would
be allotted any land after reconstitution of the plots, the plaintiffs
cannot assert any vested right in that regard. [Paras 38, 41]
Case Law Cited
Union of India and Another v. Smt. Shanti Devi and
Others [1984] 1 SCR 217 : (1983) 4 SCC 542; N.
Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of A.P. [1994] Supp.
3 SCR 144 : (1994) 6 SCC 205 – held inapplicable.
State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others
[1969] 3 SCR 341 : (1969) 1 SCC 509; Prakash
Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat and Others [1985]
Supp. 3 SCR 1025 : (1986) 1 SCC 581; Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation and Another v. Ahmedabad Green
Belt Khedut Mandal and Others [2014] 11 SCR 855 :
(2014) 7 SCC 357; Maneklal Chhotalal and Others v.
M.G. Makwana and Others [1967] 3 SCR 65 : AIR
1967 SC 1373; Malluru Mallappa (Dead) through
Lrs. v. Kuruvathappa and Others [2020] 2 SCR 789 :
(2020) 4 SCC 313; Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam
Tiwari (Deceased) by Lrs. [2001] 1 SCR 948 : (2001)
3 SCC 179; Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and Others v.
S.P. Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs. [2016] 11 SCR 1 :
(2017) 2 SCC 415; G. Amalorpavam and others v. R.C.
Diocese of Madurai and Others [2006] 2 SCR 899 :
(2006) 3 SCC 224 – referred to.
Bhupendra Kumar Ramanlal and Others v. State of
Gujarat and Others (1995) 1 GLH 1124 : (1996) AIHC
109 – approved.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Gujarat Town Planning and
Urban Development Act, 1976; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
Development Rules, 1979.
598 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Order 41 Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Town Planning
and Urban Development; Town Planning Scheme; Variation of a
Town Planning Scheme; Original Town Planning Scheme; Plot
owner surrendered land pursuant to Town Planning Scheme;
Vacant possession; Compensation; Points for determination not
framed; Alternative plot; Second varied scheme; Allotment of
land; Cross-objection; First appellate Court; Allotment of a plot of
lesser area; Right to a larger area; Initial allotment; Reconstitution
of plots; Reduction in the reconstituted plot area; Allotment of a
reconstituted plot; Rights in the earlier plots of land extinguished;
Market value of land in question at relevant point of time.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 16956-16957
of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2013 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in FA No. 3596 of 2009 and CRO No. 81
of 2010
Appearances for Parties
Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Amit Thakkar, Mrugen Purohit, Mahesh
Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal,
E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Appellants.
Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv., Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi,
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar, J.
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.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 599
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
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 ₹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
@ ₹25/- per sq. mt. for the deducted area of 974 sq. mts, though
the value of the land in 1991 was about ₹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
600 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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. @ ₹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 failure of the Corporation in discharging its duties
under the Act of 1976.
4. Further, the plaintiffs pointed out that, in Town Planning Scheme No.
6, Final Plot No. 187 was reserved for construction of a school but
the Corporation permitted one Pulkit Trust to use it as a playground
in 1970. In the first variation of the scheme, Final Plot No. 187 was
reserved for a Civic Centre. Litigation cropped up between Pulkit
Trust and the Corporation and during the pendency thereof, the
Corporation prepared the second varied scheme, whereby the plaintiffs
were allotted Final Plot No. 187 though it was still in the occupation
of Pulkit Trust. The Corporation issued Notice dated 27.04.1992
under Section 68 of the Act of 1976 proposing to evict Pulkit Trust
from the land. After considering the objections raised by Pulkit Trust,
the Corporation informed it on 27.09.1994 that the same were not
accepted. Thereupon, Pulkit Trust filed Civil Suit No. 5415 of 1994,
which ultimately culminated with the dismissal of the SLP filed by it
before this Court in 1995.
5. The plaintiffs further stated that, in the meantime, a public interest
litigation was instituted before the High Court of Gujarat vide Special
Civil Application No. 3980 of 1992. The plaintiffs also joined the litigation
thereafter as necessary parties. This case was finally dismissed by
the High Court on 3/4.04.1995. The plaintiffs stated that they had
suffered huge monetary losses as they were deprived of the benefit of
enjoying the property since 1963 and the failure of the Corporation in
allotting them suitable land, at the time the scheme was implemented,
amounted to failure in discharge of its statutory obligation and duty
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 601
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
under Sections 65, 68, 84 and 85 of the Act of 1976. The plaintiffs
claimed that the market rate of the land allotted to the plaintiffs was
about ₹150/- per sq. yd. in the year 1963 and, therefore, the value of
3890 sq. yds. would come to ₹5,83,500/-. They asserted that if this
amount had been invested at 10% p.a. compound rate of interest,
it would come to ₹1,63,97,673/-. They prayed for compensation of
₹1,63,97,673/-. They further stated that, the scheme was framed as
per the provisions of the Act of 1976, whereby deduction of 21.40%
of their land was necessitated, but they were finally allotted land with
a further deduction of 974 sq. mts. illegally. They, therefore, sought
allotment of that land in the alternative.
6. The Corporation filed its written statement in the suit, stating as under:
The suit, as framed, was not maintainable and the Civil Court had
no jurisdiction to entertain it and grant the reliefs prayed for therein.
The suit also required to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties, as
the State Government had not been impleaded therein. Even on
merits, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The
plaintiffs were allotted Final Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2278 sq.
mts., under the scheme, which had been varied after following the
due procedure. As regards the shortfall of land, the plaintiffs were
paid compensation @ ₹25/- per sq. mt. under the scheme itself and,
as such, the plaintiffs accepted possession of Final Plot No. 187 and
the compensation, in respect of the remaining area of land, without
protest and without challenging the same. Therefore, it was not open
to them to make out a grievance either with respect to the remaining
area of land and/or the quantum of compensation. If they had any
grievance with respect to the quantum of compensation, they were
required to prefer an appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1976.
Further, the plaintiffs could not pray for compensation for the extent
of 974 sq. mts. on the basis of the original Town Planning Scheme
No. 6, Paldi, as upon variation of the scheme, the original scheme
ceased to be in existence and stood substituted by the varied scheme
under Section 71 of the Act of 1976. The Corporation, accordingly,
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
following issues for consideration: -
‘1) Whether the plaintiff proves that deceased father was
the original owner of land bearing S. Nos. 255, 209
602 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and 210/P (original plot Nos. 144, 150/P and 151/P)
admeasuring 19823 sq. yards in Paldi area?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that they required to be
allotted 155/6 sq. yards by Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation due to enforcement of Town Planning
Scheme?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that one final plot was
allotted on the original plot itself and another final plot
admeasuring about 3890 sq. yards bearing S. No. 403
was allotted to other side?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant failed
perform its legal obligation to give vacant and peaceful
possession of Final Plot No. 463 due to alleged
reasons?
5) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant offered
Final Plot No. 187 admeasuring 2278 sq. mts.?
6) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant offered
a meagre compensation for the deducted area of 972
sq. meter. Even though the real value of the land in
1991 was about Rs. 6000/- per sq. meter, in Paldi area?
7) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant handed
over and allotted the possession of Final Plot No. 187
on dt. 3196 after litigation as alleged in the plaint?
8) Whether the plaintiff proves that the compensation
awarded, for the difference of 974 sq. meter. At the
rate of Rs. 25 per sq. meter, was merely an eye wash
in view of the prevailing prices of land in Paldi area
in the year 1991?
9) Whether the plaintiff proves that as alleged plots
handed over to him on different dates, so he suffered
huge monetary loss and deprived of benefit on
enjoyment of their property since 1963?
10) Whether the plaintiff proves that the prevailing market
rate of the allotted land to them was about Rs. 150/-
per sq. yard in 1963? And value of 3890 sq. yards
land would come to Rs. 5,83,500?
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 603
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
11) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to
the interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on Rs. 5,83,500/-
which have turned out in investment at compound rate
of interest comes to Rs. 1,63,97,673/- as alleged?
11A) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be allotted remaining
land of 974 sq. meter by the defendant as prayed for
in para 10(A) of plaint?
12) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad and
illegal for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged?
13) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not
maintainable as alleged?
14) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff had not
raised any objection at the proper time as alleged?
15) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is not
entitled to any special notice as alleged?
16) Whether the defendant proves that in plaintiff’s case
they followed all the necessary procedure as alleged?
17) Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no
jurisdiction to try this suit?
18) What order and what decree?’
8. After considering the evidence, oral and documentary, and
the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court answered Issue
Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,7, 8,9 and 11A in the affirmative and Issue Nos.
6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 in the negative. Significantly, the
Corporation adduced no oral or documentary evidence. As regards
Issue Nos. 4 and 5, pertaining to the offer and allotment of Final
Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2278 sq. mts., the Trial Court noted that
Resolution dated 15.10.1986 was passed by the Town Planning
Committee, in which it was stated that in the place of Final Plot No.
463, it was advised that the same area in Final Plot No. 187 is to
be allotted. The Trial Court also noted the Resolution passed by the
Corporation on 30.10.1986 that the plaintiffs would be allotted the
same area of land which was earlier allotted in Final Plot No. 463.
The Trial Court further noted the correspondence thereafter, which
reflected that Final Plot No. 187 was being allotted to the plaintiffs
and that the change of allotment of plots resulted in a reduction of
604 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
974 sq. mts. of land. The Trial Court accordingly answered Issue
Nos. 4 and 5 in the affirmative. As regards Issue No. 6, pertaining
to the compensation for the reduced area of 974 sq. mts., the Trial
Court noted that though the plaintiffs pleaded that, in the year
1991 the value of the land in Paldi area was about ₹6000/- per
sq. mt., they did not produce a single document or corroborative
evidence to prove that fact. The issue was, therefore, answered
in the negative.
9. As regards Issue Nos. 8 and 9 as to whether the compensation @
₹25/- per sq. mt. was merely an eye wash and whether the plaintiffs
suffered huge monetary losses, the Trial Court noted that Final Plot
No. 187 had been allotted to the plaintiffs in the place of Final Plot
No. 463, which was initially allotted to them in the year 1963 and for
which the rate was shown as ₹25/- per sq. mt. The Trial Court noted
that 33 years after the allotment of Final Plot No. 463, Final Plot No.
187 was handed over to the plaintiffs in January, 1996, and the same
rate of ₹25/- per sq. mt. was adopted for the compensation. The
Trial Court, accordingly, agreed with the plaintiffs that the said rate
was meagre and, therefore, the compensation offered at that rate
was merely an eye wash. As Final Plot No. 187 was handed over
to the plaintiffs 33 years after the allotment of the first plot and as
Paldi area could be considered a posh area, the Trial Court affirmed
that the plaintiffs had suffered monetary loss by the deprivation of
the benefit of enjoying the property since 1963. Issue Nos. 8 and
9 were accordingly answered in the affirmative.
10. As the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence in support of their claim
as to the market value of the land but as they had proved that the
Corporation failed to allot the remaining extent of 974 sq. mts. due
to total negligence, they were held entitled to get that extent of land.
Issue Nos. 10 and 11 were answered in the negative but Issue No.
11A was answered in the affirmative. Issue No. 12, pertaining to the
maintainability of the suit, was answered in favour of the plaintiffs
and in the negative.
11. Issue Nos. 13,14,15,16 and 17 were taken up together and the Trial
Court answered all of them also in the negative. As regards the bar
under Section 105 of the Act of 1976, the Trial Court opined that this
provision was not intended to protect injustice caused to the parties
and as the Corporation had failed to provide the second final plot till
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 605
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
the year 1996 and the same was given with a short fall in area and
with meagre compensation therefor, the said actions were not in good
faith and the statutory provision would not protect the Corporation.
12. The Trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit by accepting the
alternative prayer made by the plaintiffs that they should be allotted an
extent of 974 sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western
zone of Ahmedabad, but rejected the main prayer for compensation
of ₹1,63,97,673/- with interest thereon. The plaintiffs were, however,
directed to repay the amount of compensation received by them @
₹25/- per sq. mt. for the extent in question.
13. Assailing the aforestated judgment and decree, the Corporation
preferred the subject first appeal before the High Court while the
plaintiffs filed their cross-objection therein, apropos the rejection of
their main prayer for compensation to the tune of ₹1,63,97,673/-.
Before doing so, the plaintiffs deposited ₹24,350/-, being the amount
awarded towards compensation for 974 sq. mts. of land @ ₹25/- per
sq. mt., as directed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, by the impugned
judgment, the High Court held in favour of the Corporation by allowing
its appeal and against the plaintiffs by rejecting their cross-objection.
14. Perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that the High Court noted
the contentions of both parties and then extracted the issues framed
by the Trial Court in extenso. The High Court, however, did not frame
the points that arose for determination in the appeal, in terms of Order
41 Rule 31 CPC. The High Court then referred to the arguments
advanced on behalf of the parties and started the discussion on
merits from para 5.1 of the judgment. The High Court observed that
compensation had been paid for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @
₹25/- per sq. mt. and noted that it was not in dispute that the said
compensation amount had been accepted without protest. The High
Court also noted that the plaintiffs had not challenged the second
varied Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, under which they were
allotted Final Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2278 sq. mts., in lieu of the
originally allotted Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring 3890 sq. yds. The
High Court also took note of the fact that the plaintiffs supported the
second varied scheme before the Division Bench of the High Court
in Special Civil Application No. 3980 of 1992 and concluded that they
could not make out a grievance with regard to the non-delivery of the
remaining 974 sq. mts. of land.
606 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15. Reference was made by the High Court to Section 71 of the Act of
1976, which allowed variation of a Town Planning Scheme and it
was held that any right with respect to the remaining 974 sq. mts.,
on the basis of the original Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, no
longer remained in existence after such variation. The High Court,
accordingly, held that the Trial Court had erred in directing the
Corporation to allot 974 sq. mts. of land in any other scheme in the
western zone of Ahmedabad. The High Court also took note of the
fact that the Trial Court had opined that the compensation paid to
the plaintiffs for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per sq. mt. was
inadequate, which had led to the direction to the Corporation to allot
an equivalent extent of land in any other Town Planning Scheme,
while directing the plaintiffs to return the amount of compensation
paid to them. The High Court, thereupon, observed that once the
plaintiffs accepted Final Plot No. 187 and the compensation for the
974 sq. mts. of land @ ₹25/- per sq. mt. under the second varied
Town Planning Scheme, No. 6, Paldi, without protest, it was not
open to the Trial Court to pass any order which would tantamount
to further varying the scheme when it was not even challenged by
the plaintiffs.
16. As regards the inaction on the part of the Corporation in handing over
vacant possession of Final Plot No. 463, the High Court observed
that once the original Town Planning Scheme was varied, it was
not open to the plaintiffs to assert any grievance in relation to the
plot allotted to them under that scheme. As regards the inadequacy
of compensation, the High Court held that the Trial Court could not
have gone into that issue as no appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs
under Section 54 of the Act of 1976, if they were unhappy with the
quantum of compensation.
17. Insofar as the cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs is concerned, the
High Court noted that the Trial Court had not accepted their prayer
to award them compensation of ₹1,63,97,673/- as they had failed
to prove, by leading evidence, that at the relevant time in 1963 the
market price of the land was ₹150/- per sq. mt. The High Court further
held that it was not open to them to claim any damages, having
accepted the smaller plot allotted to them under the varied scheme
and the compensation for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per
sq. mt. without protest. The High Court, accordingly, concluded that
the cross-objection deserved to be dismissed. It is on this basis that
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 607
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by the Corporation and
dismissed the cross-objection of the plaintiffs.
18. Before we proceed further, it would be apposite to take note of the
statutory milieu pertinent to this case and the case law relevant
thereto. Chapter 5 of the Act of 1976 is titled ‘Town Planning Schemes’
and comprises Sections 40 to 76. Section 40 deals with the making
and the contents of a Town Planning Scheme and empowers the
appropriate authority to make one or more Town Planning Scheme(s)
for a development area. Section 40(3) states that a Town Planning
Scheme may make provision for the matters enumerated in clauses
(a) to (m) thereunder. Clause (jj) therein was, however, substituted
with effect from 01.05.1999. Clause (a) refers to laying out or re-
laying out of land, either vacant or already built upon, while clause
(d) relates to the construction, alteration and removal of buildings,
bridges and other structures. Clause (e) relates to the allotment or
ear-marking of land for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation
grounds, schools, markets, green-belts, dairies, transport facilities
and public purposes of all kinds. Section 41 requires the appropriate
authority, in consultation with the Chief Town Planner, to declare its
intention to make a Town Planning Scheme in respect of a particular
area and, within 21 days from the date of such declaration, publish
the same in the prescribed manner and dispatch a copy thereof to
the State Government, along with a plan showing the area which it
proposes to include in the Town Planning Scheme. A copy of such
plan shall be open to public inspection at the office of the appropriate
authority. Section 42 deals with the making and publication of a draft
scheme and states that, within 9 months from the date of declaration
of intention under Section 41, the appropriate authority shall make
a draft scheme of the area in respect of which the said declaration
was made and publish the same in the Official Gazette along with
the draft regulations for carrying out the provisions of the scheme.
Section 44 details the contents of the draft scheme and provides
that it should contain the particulars enumerated under Clauses (a)
to (h). Clause (a) pertains to the area, ownership and tenure of each
original plot while clause (b) relates to the particulars of land allotted
or reserved under Section 40(3)(e). Clause (c) relates to the extent
to which it is proposed to alter the boundaries of the original plot and
clause (e) requires a full description of all the details of the scheme
under Section 40(3), as may be applicable.
608 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
19. Section 45 of the Act of 1976 pertains to the reconstitution of plots and
Section 45(1) states that, in the draft scheme referred to in Section
44, the size and shape of every plot shall be determined, so far as
may be, to render it suitable for building purposes and where the plot
has already been built upon, to ensure that the building, as far as
possible, complies with the provisions of the scheme as regards open
spaces. Section 45(2) states that, for the purposes of sub-section (1),
the draft scheme may contain proposals as to the details mentioned
under clauses (a) to (e). This provision reads as under: -
‘(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the draft scheme
may contain proposals-
(a) to form a final plot by the reconstitution of an
original plot by the alteration of its boundaries,
if necessary;
(b) to form a final plot from an original plot by the
transfer of any adjoining lands;
(c) to provide with the consent of the owners that
two or more original plots which are owned by
several persons or owned by persons jointly be
held in ownership in common as a final plot, with
or without alteration of boundaries;
(d) to allot a final plot to any owner dispossessed of
land in furtherance of the scheme; and
(e) to transfer the ownership of a plot from one
person to another.’
20. Section 47 of the Act of 1976 provides for objections being raised
against the draft scheme and states that such objections are to be
made in writing within one month from the date of publication of the
draft scheme and the same should be considered by the appropriate
authority. Further, before submitting the draft scheme to the State
Government, the appropriate authority may modify the scheme as it
thinks fit. Section 48 empowers the State Government to sanction the
draft scheme. Section 50 requires the State Government to appoint a
Town Planning Officer within one month from the date on which the
draft scheme has been sanctioned and notified in the Official Gazette
and the duties of such Town Planning Officer are set out in Section
51. Thereunder, the Town Planning Officer is required, within twelve
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 609
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
months from the date of his appointment, to sub-divide the Town
Planning Scheme into a preliminary scheme and a final scheme,
following the prescribed procedure. Section 52 details the contents of
the preliminary and final schemes. Insofar as a preliminary scheme
is concerned, the Town Planning Officer is required, under Section
52(1), to give notice in the prescribed manner to the persons affected
by the scheme and define and demarcate the areas allotted to or
reserved for a public purpose or for the purpose of the appropriate
authority and the final plots. Under Section 52(1)(iii), the Town Planning
Officer is empowered to provide for the total or partial transfer of any
right in an original plot to a final plot or provide for the transfer of any
right in an original plot in accordance with the provisions of Section
81. Section 52(2) requires the Town Planning Officer to submit the
preliminary scheme so prepared to the State Government for sanction
and to, thereafter, prepare and submit to the State Government the
final scheme in accordance with the provisions of Section 52(3).
21. In the said final scheme, the Town Planning Officer is required, under
Section 52(3), to fix the difference between the total of the values
of the original plots and the total of the values of the plots included
in the scheme, in accordance with the provisions of Section 77(1)
(f). Under Clause (iii) of Section 52(3), the Town Planning Officer is
required to estimate the sums payable as compensation on each plot
used, allotted or reserved for a public purpose or for the purpose
of the appropriate authority, which is beneficial partly to owners or
residents within the area of the scheme and partly to the general
public, which shall be included in the costs of the scheme. Clauses
(iv) to (ix), thereafter, deal with the Town Planning Officer’s power
to calculate and determine the contribution to be made by the plot
owners in relation to the plots used, allotted or reserved for public
purposes or for the purpose of the appropriate authority which is
beneficial partly to the owners or residents within the area of the
scheme and partly to the general public. This would also include the
calculation of the contribution to be levied on each plot owner under
the final scheme. Section 52(3)(x) requires the Town Planning Officer
to estimate, with reference to claims made before him, after giving
due notice in the prescribed manner and form, the compensation
to be paid to the owner of any property or right injuriously affected
by the making of the Town Planning Scheme, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 82. Section 54 provides for an appeal
610 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
against any decision of the Town Planning Officer under Section
52(3)(iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) which are to be communicated
forthwith to the party concerned and such party, if aggrieved thereby,
is entitled to file an appeal within one month from the date of such
communication before the Board of Appeal, constituted under Section
55. Section 67(a) refers to the effect of a preliminary scheme and
states that, on the day on which the preliminary scheme comes into
force, all lands required by the appropriate authority shall, unless
it is otherwise determined in such scheme, vest absolutely in the
appropriate authority, free from all encumbrances. Section 67(b)
states that upon the preliminary scheme coming into force, all rights
in the original plots, which have been reconstituted into final plots,
shall determine and the final plots shall become subject to the rights
settled by the Town Planning Officer. Section 68 empowers the
appropriate authority to summarily evict any person continuing to
occupy land which he is not entitled to occupy under the preliminary
scheme, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, after such
preliminary scheme comes into force. Section 70 empowers the
appropriate authority to apply in writing to the State Government
for variation of the preliminary or final scheme after it has come into
force, if the said authority considers that the scheme is defective
on account of an error, irregularity or informality. Section 71 is titled
‘Variation of Town Planning Scheme by another scheme’. It begins
with a non-obstante clause and reads as under: -
‘71. Variation of town planning scheme by another
scheme. -Notwithstanding anything contained in Section
70, a town planning scheme may at any time be varied by
a subsequent scheme made, published and sanctioned in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.’
22. Section 81 is titled ‘Transfer of right from original to final plot or
extinction of such right’ and states that any right in an original plot
which, in the opinion of the Town Planning Officer, is capable of
being transferred wholly or in part, without prejudice to the making
of a Town Planning Scheme, to a final plot shall be so transferred
and any right in an original plot which, in the opinion of the Town
Planning Officer, is not capable of being so transferred, shall be
extinguished. Section 82 is titled ‘Compensation in respect of property
or right injuriously affected by the scheme’ and states that the owner
of any property or right which is injuriously affected by the making
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 611
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
of a Town Planning Scheme shall, if he makes a claim before the
Town Planning Officer within the prescribed time, be entitled to be
compensated in respect thereof by the appropriate authority or by
any person benefited or partly by the appropriate authority and partly
by such person, as the Town Planning Officer may in each case
determine. The proviso thereunder states that the value of such
property or right shall be deemed to be its market value on the date
of declaration of the intention to make a scheme or the date of the
notification issued by the State Government under Section 43(1)
without reference to improvements contemplated in the scheme, as
the case may be. Section 84 deals with cases in which the amount
payable to the owner exceeds the amount due from him and states
that, if the owner of an original plot is not provided with a plot in the
preliminary scheme or if the contribution to be levied on him under
Section 79 is less than the total amount to be deducted therefrom
under any of the provisions of the Act of 1976, the net amount of his
loss shall be payable to him by the appropriate authority in case or in
such other manner as may be agreed upon by the parties. Section 105
is titled ‘Bar of legal proceedings’ and states that no suit, prosecution
or other legal proceeding shall lie against the State Government, the
appropriate authority or any public servant or person duly appointed
or authorized under the Act of 1976 in respect of anything in good
faith done or purported to be done under the provisions thereof or
any rules or regulations made thereunder.
23. Section 118 of the Act of 1976 empowers the State Government to
make rules consistent with the provisions of that statute to carry out
the purposes thereof. In exercise of such power, the Gujarat Town
Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979, were framed. Rule 16
thereof prescribes the procedure to be followed for publication of the
declaration under Section 41 of the Act of 1976. Rule 17 states that,
for the purpose of making the draft scheme under Section 42 of the
Act of 1976, the appropriate authority shall call a meeting or meetings
of the owners of the lands included in the Town Planning Scheme,
by a public notice as well as by individual notice to every owner
whose address is known to the appropriate authority, and explain in
such meeting the tentative proposals of the draft scheme for eliciting
public opinion and suggestions on the said proposals. Thereafter, the
appropriate authority is empowered to take into consideration all such
suggestions and objections raised on the proposals for making the
612 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
draft scheme under Section 42. Rule 26 details the procedure to be
followed by the Town Planning Officer under Sections 51 and 52(1)
of the Act of 1976. Rule 26(1) requires the Town Planning Officer to
give notice in Form H of the date on which he would commence his
duties for preparing the preliminary scheme and final scheme and
he shall also state the time within which the owner of any property or
right which is injuriously affected by the making of the scheme, who
would be entitled under Section 82, to make a claim for compensation
before him. Under Rule 26(4), the Town Planning Officer is required
to give every person, interested in any land affected by a scheme,
sufficient opportunity of stating their views and not give a decision till
he has duly considered their representations, if any. Rule 37 states
that a claim under Section 82 shall be made within three months from
the date fixed in the notice given under Rule 26(1).
24. Now, a quick recce of precedential thought on the Act of 1976 and
the like. In State of Gujarat vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and others1,
a Constitution Bench had occasion to consider the provisions of the
Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955. The provisions of that enactment
were earlier applicable in the State of Gujarat and are in pari materia
with those of the Act of 1976. Section 53 of the Bombay Town Planning
Act, 1955, provided that all lands required by the local authority
shall, on the day on which the final scheme comes into force, vest
absolutely in the local authority free from all encumbrances, unless
it is otherwise determined in such scheme, and that all rights in the
original plots which have been reconstituted shall determine and the
reconstituted plots shall become subject to the rights settled by the
Town Planning Officer. In effect, this provision is identical to Section
67 of the Act of 1976. The argument advanced in that case before
the High Court, which had found favour with it in holding Section 53
ultra vires, was that when a plot is reconstituted and out of that plot,
a smaller area is given to the owner and the remaining area is utilized
for a public purpose, the area so utilized vests in the local authority
but as the Act did not provide for giving compensation, which is a
just equivalent of the land expropriated on the date of extinction of
interest, the guaranteed right under Article 31(2) of the Constitution
stood infringed. Negating this contention, the Constitution Bench held
that Section 53 did not provide that a reconstituted plot is transferred
1 [1969] 3 SCR 341 : (1969) 1 SCC 509
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 613
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
or is deemed to be transferred from the local authority to the owner
of the original plot, as it provides for statutory readjustment of the
rights of the owners of the original plots of land. The Bench pointed
out that when the scheme comes into force, all rights in the original
plots stand extinguished and, simultaneously therewith, ownership
springs in the reconstituted plots. Noting that there is no vesting of
original plots in the local authority nor transfer of the rights of the
local authority in the reconstituted plots, the Bench observed that a
part or even the whole plot belonging to an owner may go to form a
reconstituted plot which may be allotted to another person or may be
appropriated to public purposes under the scheme. The Bench further
observed that the source of the power to appropriate the whole or
a part of the original plot in forming a reconstituted plot is statutory
and it does not predicate ownership of the plot in the local authority
and no process - actual or notional - of transfer is contemplated in
that appropriation. The Bench ultimately held that the concept that
lands vest in the local authority when the intention to make a scheme
is notified is against the plain intendment of the Act. Significantly,
while considering the provision in the Bombay Town Planning Act,
1955, pertaining to the method of adjustment of contribution against
compensation receivable by an owner of land, viz., Section 67, the
Bench noted that the said provision states that the difference between
the market value of the plot, with all the buildings and works thereon,
on the date of declaration of the intention to make a scheme and the
market value of the plot as reconstituted on the same day and without
reference to the improvements contemplated in the scheme, is to
be the compensation due to the owner and in the event the owner
of the original land is not allotted a plot at all, he shall be paid the
value of the original plot on the date of declaration of the intention
to make a scheme.
25. In Prakash Amichand Shah vs. State of Gujarat and others2,
another Constitution Bench again dealt with the provisions of the
Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955. It was observed therein that, on
the final scheme coming into force, the lands affected by the said
scheme which are needed by the local authority for the purposes of
the scheme automatically vest in the local authority and there is no
need to set in motion the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2 [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 1025 : (1986) 1 SCC 581
614 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Bench pointed out that the Town Planning Officer is authorized
to determine whether any reconstituted plot can be given to a person
whose land is affected by the scheme, as all rights of private owners
in the original plots would determine and certain consequential rights
in favour of the owners would arise therefrom. The Bench noted that,
if reconstituted or final plots are allotted to them in the scheme, they
become owners of such final plots, subject to the rights settled by
the Town Planning Officer in the final scheme, and in some cases
the original plot of an owner might be completely allotted by the
local authority for a public purpose and such private owner may be
paid compensation or given a reconstituted plot in some other place.
Significantly, it was noted that such a reconstituted plot may be a
smaller or a bigger plot and, in some cases, it may not be possible to
allot a final plot at all. Reference was made to the provisions of the
said Act, which provided for certain financial adjustments regarding
payment of money to the local authority or to the owners of the
original plots and it was noted that the development and planning
carried out under the Act is primarily for the benefit of the public and
the local authority is under an obligation to function according to the
Act and bear a part of the expenses of the development. The Bench
observed that, in one sense, it is a package deal.
26. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another vs. Ahmedabad
Green Belt Khedut Mandal and others3, a 3-Judge Bench of this
Court considered the provisions of the Act of 1976. It was observed
that the provisions of the Act of 1976, read conjointly, give a clear
picture that the Town Planning Scheme is just like consolidation
proceedings as the land belonging to various persons is first put into
a pool and then allocated for different purposes and, in such a way,
after having all deductions, the loss and profit of individual tenure-
holders is to be calculated. It was noted that a Town Planning Scheme
would provide for pooling the entire land covered by the scheme
and, thereafter, reshuffling and reconstituting of plots and the market
value of the original plots and final plots is to be assessed and the
authority has to determine as to whether a land owner has suffered
some injury or has gained from such process. It was also pointed
out that reconstitution of plots is permissible, as provided under
the scheme of the Act and as is evident from a reading of Sections
3 [2014] 11 SCR 855 : (2014) 7 SCC 357
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 615
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
45(2)(a),(b),(c) and Section 52(1)(iii), in accordance with Section 81
of the Act of 1976. The Bench observed that, if by reconstitution of
the plots, anybody suffers injury, the statutory provisions provide for
compensation under Section 67(b) read with Section 82 of the Act of
1976. It was further noted that, by such reconstitution and readjustment
of plots, there is no vesting of land in the local authority and the Act
of 1976 provides for payment of non-monetary compensation and
that mode was approved by the Constitution Bench in Shantilal
Mangaldas (supra), wherein this Court held that when the scheme
comes into force, all rights in the original plots are extinguished and,
simultaneously therewith, ownership springs in the reconstituted plots.
Reference was also made to Maneklal Chhotalal and others vs.
M.G. Makwana and others4, wherein it was observed that, even if
an original plot owner is allotted a smaller extent of land in the final
plot and has to pay certain amount as contribution, having regard to
the scheme and its objects, it is inevitable and would not amount to
deprivation. The 3-Judge Bench, accordingly, observed that it is evident
that in case a land owner is not provided with a final plot, the amount
of his loss would be payable to him as required under Section 82 of
the Act of 1976. Again referring to Shantilal Mangaldas (supra), it
was noted that there is no necessity to acquire the land as the title
of the owners is readjusted upon the scheme being sanctioned and
the lands required for any of the purposes of the scheme need not
be acquired otherwise than under the Act, for it is a settled rule of
interpretation of statutes that when power is given thereunder to do
a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way
or not at all.
27. This being the legal position vis-à-vis the Act of 1976, it was contended
before us by the plaintiffs that the impugned judgment of the High
Court is liable to be set aside on the short ground that no points for
determination were framed therein, as required by Order 41 Rule 31
CPC. Reliance was placed on Malluru Mallappa (Dead) through
Lrs. vs. Kuruvathappa and others5, wherein this Court observed
that the first appellate Court is required to set out the points for
determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasoning.
It was further observed that, even when the said Court affirms the
4 [1967] 3 SCR 65 : AIR 1967 SC 1373
5 [2020] 2 SCR 789 : (2020) 4 SCC 313
616 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
judgment of the Trial Court, it has to comply with the requirements of
Order 41 Rule 31 CPC as non-observance thereof would lead to an
infirmity in its judgment. However, it may be noted that no absolute
proposition was laid down therein to the effect that failure to frame
points for determination, in itself, would render the first appellate
Court’s judgment invalid on that ground.
28. Reference was also made to Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari
(Deceased) by LRs6, wherein this Court held that a first appeal is
a valuable right and unless restricted by law, the whole case would
be open for rehearing before it, both on questions of fact and law,
and, therefore, the judgment of the first appellate Court must reflect
conscious application of mind and it must record findings supported
by reasons on all the issues arising, along with the contentions put
forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the said Court. It
was further observed that, while reversing a finding of fact, the first
appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning
of the Trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a
different finding. This, per this Court, would satisfy the requirement
of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
29. However, in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and others vs. S.P.
Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs.7, this Court, while affirming the
aforestated principles, observed that it is well settled that the mere
omission to frame the points for determination would not vitiate the
judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that the first appellate
Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence adduced by both
parties.
30. Thus, even if the first appellate Court does not separately frame the
points for determination arising in the first appeal, it would not prove
fatal as long as that Court deals with all the issues that actually
arise for deliberation in the said appeal. Substantial compliance with
the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC in that regard is sufficient.
In this regard, useful reference may be made to G. Amalorpavam
and others vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and others8, wherein this
Court held as under: -
6 [2001] 1 SCR 948 : (2001) 3 SCC 179
7 [2016] 11 SCR 1 : (2017) 2 SCC 415
8 [2006] 2 SCR 899 : (2006) 3 SCC 224
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 617
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
‘9. The question whether in a particular case there has
been substantial compliance with the provisions of Order
41 Rule 31 CPC has to be determined on the nature of the
judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the
provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly
void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial
compliance with it and the second appellate court is in a
position to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate
court. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should
comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that
there is substantial compliance with the said requirements
and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be
sufficient. Where the appellate court has considered the
entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail,
come to any conclusion and its findings are supported by
reasons even though the point has not been framed by
the appellate court there is substantial compliance with the
provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the judgment is
not in any manner vitiated by the absence of a point of
determination. Where there is an honest endeavour on the
part of the lower appellate court to consider the controversy
between the parties and there is proper appraisement of
the respective cases and weighing and balancing of the
evidence, facts and the other considerations appearing on
both sides is clearly manifest by the perusal of the judgment
of the lower appellate court, it would be a valid judgment
even though it does not contain the points for determination.
The object of the rule in making it incumbent upon the
appellate court to frame points for determination and to cite
reasons for the decision is to focus attention of the court
on the rival contentions which arise for determination and
also to provide litigant parties opportunity in understanding
the ground upon which the decision is founded with a view
to enable them to know the basis of the decision and if so
considered appropriate and so advised to avail the remedy
of second appeal conferred by Section 100 CPC.’
31. As already noted hereinabove, the High Court did set out all the
issues framed by the Trial Court in the body of the judgment and
was, therefore, fully conscious of all the points that it had to consider
618 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in the appeal. Further, we do not find that any particular issue that
was considered by the Trial Court was left out by the High Court
while adjudicating the appeal. In effect, we do not find merit in the
contention that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on
this preliminary ground, warranting reconsideration of the first appeal
by the High Court afresh.
32. As regards the merits of the matter, we may note that though the father
of the plaintiffs was allotted Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring 3890 sq.
yds./3252 sq. mts. in the original Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi,
in the year 1963, possession thereof could not be delivered to him as
it was occupied by slum dwellers. It was only in the second variation
of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 in August, 1986, that Final Plot No.
187 was allotted to the plaintiffs in lieu of Plot No. 463 and it had a
smaller area by 974 sq. mts. Reliance was placed by the plaintiffs
upon the resolutions passed by the Town Planning Committee in its
meeting held on 15.10.1986 and the Corporation in its general board
meeting held on 30.10.1986 respectively to contend that it was the
intention of the authorities concerned to allot the same area as in
Final Plot No. 463 to them. However, we find from the resolutions in
question that Final Plot No. 187 was specifically mentioned therein
and the intention was that this plot should be allotted to the plaintiffs.
It is an admitted fact that this final plot was part of the original Town
Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, and it was always of the same area,
i.e., 2724 sq. yds/2278 sq. mts. Therefore, the mere use of the
words ‘same area’ or ‘equal area’ in the resolutions had no impact
as those words were used in juxtaposition to Final Plot No. 187 and
the area of the said plot must have been within the knowledge of
all concerned as on the dates of the resolutions, given the statutory
scheme of transparency.
33. Further, though so much stress was laid by the plaintiffs upon the
resolutions passed by the authorities in the year 1986 to contend that
the ‘same area’ was to be allotted to them in lieu of Plot No. 463,
we may note that this mistaken impression, if at all entertained by
the plaintiffs, despite the clear mention of Final Plot No. 187 in those
resolutions and their own knowledge of the details of the scheme,
stood dispelled in April, 1995. They were parties to the public interest
litigation initiated in Special Civil Application No. 3980 of 1992 before
a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The
challenge therein was to the allotment of Final Plot No. 187 to them
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 619
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
on the ground that the said plot was meant for a public purpose. The
plaintiffs were respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in Special Civil Application No.
3980 of 1992. In the judgment rendered therein on 03/04.04.1995,
the Division Bench observed that Final Plot No. 187 was to be given
to the plaintiffs instead of Final Plot No. 463 which was larger. The
Division Bench further observed that it was they who appeared to
have lost in the bargain, because the plot of land which was now
being offered to them, viz., Plot No. 187, was nearly 1200 sq. yds.
lesser than Plot No. 463 and the only advantage which they got was
that Plot No. 187 was free from encumbrance. Nearly nine months
later, Final Plot No. 187 was actually delivered to the plaintiffs.
However, in the interregnum, they raised no objection or grievance
as to the reduction in the plot size and quietly waited for delivery of
Final Plot No. 187. It is also an admitted fact that, shortly thereafter,
in the year 1998, the plaintiffs sold the said plot to J.K. Cooperative
Housing Society Limited.
34. The failure of the Corporation in handing over vacant possession of
Plot No. 463 was also subjected to attack, but we find that when the
said allotment was modified by the second variation of Town Planning
Scheme No. 6, Paldi, in the year 1986, whereby the plaintiffs were
allotted Final Plot No. 187 which was of a lesser area, they silently
accepted the same and did not choose to either seek implementation
of the original scheme, whereunder they were allotted a larger plot,
or challenge the varied scheme, whereby they were given a smaller
plot. Having accepted the plot allotted to them upon variation of the
scheme without demur or protest, the plaintiffs cannot now seek to
reopen the negligence and delay, if any, on the part of the Corporation
prior to such variation. Further, as is evident from the edicts laid down
by this Court, referred to supra, upon the preparation or variation
of a Town Planning Scheme, the rights in the earlier plots of land
would stand extinguished. That being so, such rights, if any, which
have become extinct cannot be the basis for a later cause of action.
35. No doubt, even in 1986, when Final Plot No. 187 was allotted to the
plaintiffs, it was not free of occupation as it had been given to Pulkit
Trust for utilization as a playground. Even if this action on the part of
the Corporation is held to be not in good faith, it would only entail a
claim for compensation or damages, but as noted by the Trial Court
as well as the High Court, the plaintiffs did not choose to adduce
any evidence in support of their claim for the quantified damages of
620 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
₹1,63,97,673/-. No document was produced by the plaintiffs in proof
of the price of land in Paldi area being ₹150/- per sq. yd. in the year
1963. Though reference was made to the decision of this Court in
Union of India and another vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and others9 in
the context of a return of 10% p.a. being anticipated from investment
in land and a multiplier of 13% being adopted for the purpose of
capitalization, this method of calculation would have had meaning
had the value of the land in the present case at the relevant point of
time been determined. However, as the plaintiffs did not adduce any
evidence whatsoever in proof of their claim as to the market value
of the land in question at the relevant point of time, this judgment
does not further their case, insofar as their claim for compensation/
damages is concerned. Reference to N. Nagendra Rao and Co. vs.
State of A.P.10, in support of the plaintiffs’ claim for compensation
owing to the negligence of the authorities is also of no avail as the
principles contained therein would have had application if the plaintiffs’
claim for damages/compensation was duly supported by material
evidence, which it is not.
36. Further, though it has been contended before us that the plaintiffs
never actually received the compensation offered by the Corporation
for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per sq. yd., it is an admitted
fact that, pursuant to the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the
plaintiffs did deposit the sum of ₹24,350/-, being the compensation
for 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per sq. mt., as directed by the Trial Court.
Had it been their case that they did not receive such compensation,
they ought not to have abided by the direction of the Trial Court and
deposited that amount. This voluntary act on their part precludes
them from contending, at this stage, that the said compensation was
never paid to them and that they had deposited the amount as it was
only a paltry sum.
37. The further argument of the plaintiffs that the Act of 1976 does not
contemplate a second reduction in the reconstituted plot area does
not merit acceptance. Section 45 of the Act of 1976 deals with
reconstitution of plots and it is a settled legal position, per the decisions
of this Court in Prakash Amichand Shah and Ahmedabad Green Belt
9 [1984] 1 SCR 217 : (1983) 4 SCC 542
10 [1994] Supp. 3 SCR 144 : (1994) 6 SCC 205
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 621
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Khedut Mandal, referred to hereinabove, that a plot owner who has
surrendered his original land for the purposes of the Town Planning
Scheme is not even assured of allotment of a reconstituted plot in
lieu thereof. In such an event, he is entitled only to compensation.
Therefore, there is no guaranteed right vesting in a plot owner who
surrendered his land in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme
that he would be allotted another plot of land in lieu thereof, much
less, a plot of the same area. It is an admitted fact that, when the
plaintiffs’ father surrendered an extent of 19823 sq. yds./16575 sq.
mts., he was allotted a lesser extent of 15576 sq. yds./13023 sq. mts
in two plots in the original Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, with
a deduction of 21.40%.
38. Though it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that variation
of the Town Planning Scheme as permitted under Sections 70 and
71 of the Act of 1976 must be read together, we find no merit in this
submission. Section 70 deals with the power to vary a Town Planning
Scheme on the ground of error, irregularity or informality while Section
71 is general in nature and states that, notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 70, a Town Planning Scheme may at any time
be varied by a subsequent scheme made, published and sanctioned
in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1976. The very fact
that Section 71 begins with a non-obstante clause referring to Section
70, manifests that the power thereunder is not fettered in any manner,
unlike the power under Section 70 which can only be exercised on
the grounds of error, irregularity or informality. Further, Section 71
postulates that the variation of the Town Planning Scheme is to be
made, published and sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of
the Act of 1976, which would mean that the entire exercise would be
undertaken afresh upon such variation, including reconstitution of the
plots under Section 45. Therefore, further reduction of a plot notified
in the original Town Planning Scheme is implicit in the general power
of variation vesting in the authority under Section 71 of the Act of
1976. Reference in this regard may be made to the Division Bench
judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Bhupendra Kumar Ramanlal
and others vs. State of Gujarat and others11, wherein It was held
that Section 71 of the Act of 1976 provides for the procedure laid
down in the Act of 1976 for making a Town Planning Scheme being
11 (1995) 1 GLH 1124 : (1996) AIHC 109
622 [2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
followed for the purpose of varying a sanctioned scheme. We are in
complete and respectful agreement with the above view expressed
by the High Court.
39. Viewed thus, we find that the plaintiffs, being well aware of the fact
that Final Plot No. 187 allotted to them under the second varied Town
Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, was of lesser area, accepted the same
without any protest and without agitating a right to a larger area in
the light of the initial allotment of Plot No. 463, and their conduct in
depositing ₹24,350/- thereafter, implying receipt of the compensation
amount for the shortfall area of 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per sq. mt.,
foreclosed their right, if any, to either challenge the allotment of a plot
of lesser area or to seek more compensation. In this regard, we may
also note that Section 52 deals, not only with the allotment of plots,
but also the amount to be paid as compensation. Section 52(3)(x)
states that the Town Planning Officer shall estimate, with reference
to the claims made before him after notice has been given by him
in the prescribed manner and form, the compensation to be paid to
the owner of any property or right injuriously effected by the making
of the Town Planning Scheme in accordance with the provisions of
Section 82. Further, Section 54 provides an appellate remedy to
the person aggrieved by any decision of the Town Planning Officer
under Section 52(3)(x). In effect, the quantification of compensation
@ ₹25/- per sq. mt. for the shortfall area of 974 sq. mts., which is
relatable to the power of the Town Planning Officer under Section
52(3)(x), was a decision which was amenable to appellate review
under Section 54. However, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs
did not avail such remedy.
40. We may also note that the plaintiffs’ main prayer in their suit was for
quantified compensation, which they had calculated on the strength
of the area of Final Plot No. 463 which could not be allotted to them,
i.e., 3890 sq. yds., but their prayer, in the alternative, was for allotment
of an extent of land of 974 sq. yds., which was the shortfall in area
when they were allotted Final Plot No. 187 in the second varied
scheme. In effect, the value of 3890 sq. yds. in Final Plot No. 463
in the original Town Planning Scheme was equated by them to an
extent of 974 sq. yds. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western
zone of Ahmedabad. Significantly, no evidence was led as to the
values of the two final plots, viz., Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring
3890 sq. yds., and Final Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2724 sq. yds.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 623
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
The monetary value of these two plots would depend upon their
situation, development, proximity and access to the main road or
highway, etc., and cannot be surmised or estimated without relevant
material being produced. It cannot even be assessed as to whether
they were of equal monetary value. Therefore, the prayer of the
plaintiffs for allotment of an extent of land equivalent to the shortfall
area of Final Plot No. 463 may not have been logical as their values
may not necessarily be commensurate or comparable.
41. To sum up, having sought quantified damages of ₹1,63,97,673/-, it was
incumbent upon the plaintiffs to adduce evidence in support of their
claim for this pre-determined sum. However, no evidence whatsoever
was produced by them in support of the land values relevant to any
point in time, be it of the original final plot or the final plot that was
ultimately given to them. In the absence of such crucial material, the
plaintiffs’ prayer for compensation necessarily had to be negated.
Further, as there was never any guarantee that a plot owner who
surrendered his land pursuant to a Town Planning Scheme would be
allotted any land after reconstitution of the plots, the plaintiffs cannot
assert any vested right in that regard.
42. On the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the
High Court was fully justified in allowing the first appeal filed by the
Corporation and non-suiting the plaintiffs in entirety. The impugned
judgment does not brook interference on any count.
The appeals are, therefore, bereft of merit and are accordingly
dismissed.
In the circumstances, parties shall bear their respective costs.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Order 41 Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908"Sign in to search