Gujarat High Court
Pashupalak Vikas Sahkari Mandli ... vs State Of Gujarat on 24 December, 2021
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 866 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12552 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 866 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PASHUPALAK VIKAS SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SI NANAVATI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR SANJIV DAVE,
ADVOCATE with MS ANUJA S NANAVATI(5229) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP /PP(99) for the Respondent(s)
No.1
MR PRASHANT DESAI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR DEEP D VYAS(3869)
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Page 1 of 39
Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022
C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 24/12/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
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 Page 2 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 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 Page 3 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 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 Page 4 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 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 declaration of the award as contemplated under Rule 26(9) of the Rules on 15.11.1994 and declared the award on the said date.
2.4 The Town Planning Officer submitted the preliminary town planning scheme for its sanction to the State Government under Section 64 of the Act and the State Government, in exercise of the powers under Section 65 of the Act, sanctioned the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme (First Varied) on 25.01.1996, which came into effect from 26.02.1996. The Town Planning Officer also drew Final Town Planning Scheme (First Varied) and the same was sanctioned by the State Government on 13.08.1998. As the record indicates, the petitioners were served with notice under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules, which came to be challenged by the petitioner society by filing Civil Suit No. 901/98 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, which was withdrawn on 29.12.2005. The Petitioners were thereafter served with the Page 5 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 impugned notice dated 15.10.2015 under Section 67 of the Act asking them to vacate the lands bearing Survey Nos. 457/1, 457/2, i.e., Final Plot No. 330 and handover the possession to respondent no.3 Corporation. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellants-original petitioners filed the present petition, wherein it was prayed as under -
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 by Respondent no.3 at Annexure "A" to the petition; and B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus staying the operation, implementation and execution of Town Planning scheme no.28 (Nava Vadej)(First Varied) which is sanctioned by State Government vide order no. V/112 OF 1998/TPS - 1198-1460-L dated 13.08.1998, till appropriate benefit as statutorily permitted are given to the petitioners;
C. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents herein not to issue any further notice for the recovery of possession of land bearing Survey no. 457/1 & 457/2 situated at Nava- Vadaj, District Ahmedabad forming part of Town Planning Scheme no. 28 (Nava-Vadaj) till appropriate benefit as statutorily permitted are given to the Petitioners;
D. Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Page 6 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 Court may be pleased to stay operation, implementation and execution of the notice / order dated 15.10.2015 at Annexure- "A" and to restrain the Respondents or their representatives from implementing or enforcing in any manner the Town Planning Scheme no.28 (Nava-Vadaj) (First Varied) which is sanctioned by State Government vide order no. V/112 OF 1998/TPS
- 1198-1460-L dated 13.08.1998 and further be pleased to grant Status-quo qua land bearing survey no.457/1 &457/2 situated at Village: Vadaj; Taluka: Sabarmati; District: Ahmedabad;
E. Ex-parte/Ad-interim relief in terms of para 10 (D) above be granted to the petitioner;
F. Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2.5 The grounds on which the impugned notice was challenged were that, the impugned notice is sanctioned without following due process of law and without imparting appropriate opportunity and without following the basic principles of natural justice. It was also contended that the scheme takes away right to property which is a constitutional cherished right and the notice itself states that the petitioners are to obtain possession of the Final plot allotted to them, but the impugned notice is silent over the same and none of the final plot is allotted to the petitioners till date and therefore, such action of taking over the possession from the appellants is bad in Page 7 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 law. It was also contended that as per the impugned notice, the legally owned property of the petitioners is sought to be acquired for some Yojna (scheme) without providing any compensation thereof or providing any alternative land to the petitioners. It was contended that the petitioners would lose their piece of land, though they are entitled in law to own and possess the land as per overwhelming clinching evidence and therefore, it was contended that such an exercise is arbitrary, colourable and unreasonable and malafide exercise of power and without application of mind. It was also contended in the petition that no hearing is given and the notice is in breach of the principles of natural justice. It was also contended in the petition that the possession of the petitioner would be taken without allotting alternative Final Plot and the said decision is bad in law and therefore, it was contended that till the petitioners are allotted Final Plot in alternative to one which is acquired, till then, they may not be evicted. Other general grounds were raised in the petition.
2.6 As the impugned judgment indicates that though there was no challenge to the Town Planning Scheme, the petitioners also took other contentions. However, there is no challenge to the validity of the scheme. The respondent Page 8 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 Corporation filed a detailed reply and even a further affidavit came to be filed by the Petitioner. The record indicates that the Corporation also filed a written note which is considered to be part of the record of the petition. It appears that in the further affidavit filed by the petitioner, certain additional points were raised, more particularly as regards variation of the scheme. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties was pleased to dismiss the petition and being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. Heard Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Dave, learned advocate for Ms. Anuja Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellants, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for the State of Gujarat on advance copy and Mr. Prashant Desai, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Deep D Vyas, learned advocate for respondent no.3 Corporation on caveat.
4. By an order dated 06.10.2021, this Court deemed it fit to call for the original record of Town Planning Scheme No. 28 Ahmedabad (Nava Wadaj) (First Varied). The said original record has been produced before this Court in compliance to the order dated 06.10.2021, which has been perused by this Court.
5. Mr.S.I. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for Page 9 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 the appellants contended that the notice dated 15.10.2015 is erroneous as in the column of Final Plot, blank is mentioned. Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants referred extensively to Rule 26 of the Rules and more particularly, invited attention of this Court to Sub-Rule (2), Sub- Rule(3) and Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 26 and contended that the Town Planning Officer has not followed the procedure as provided thereunder and that no notice is issued to the appellants because of which the appellants could not file their objections. Referring to Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 26, it was contended by Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellants that no opportunity is given by the Town Planning Officer. Further, referring to Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 26, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the Town Planning Officer has not followed the procedure as prescribed under the said Sub-Rule and it was contended that thus, the scheme itself is erroneous. Mr. Nanavati further contended that though in the writ petition there is no challenge to the scheme, by further affidavit, the same was contended before the learned Single Judge. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that as the scheme is already sanctioned, though there is limited scope to challenge the same, in view of the fact that the Town Planning Officer has committed an error in not following the procedure as Page 10 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 prescribed under Rule 26 of the Rules, the scheme is bad in law. Mr. Nanavati also submitted that the impugned notice itself is erroneous as no Final Plot is mentioned and it is left blank and that the petitioners are also not given any compensation. On the aforesaid grounds, it was therefore contended by Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal requires consideration and the impugned notice deserves to be quashed. It was also contended by Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that there is a breach of mandatory provisions and therefore, the scheme is bad and the same deserves to be varied.
6. Per contra, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP appearing for Respondent no.1 and Mr. Prashant Desai, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation have supported the impugned order and have relied upon the written notes submitted before the learned Single Judge.
7. Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that the Town Planning officer has followed the procedure as prescribed under the Act and it was contended that the petitioners in lieu of their original plot, have been given compensation in the sanctioned Page 11 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 Town Planning Scheme and therefore, it cannot be said that the notice is erroneous. Mr. Desai also contended that the original plot, which is now carved out as Final Plot is reserved for slum upgradation and for betterment of the area in question. Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that the Town Planning Officer has scrupulously followed the procedure as prescribed under the Rules and that there is no error or irregularity or informality in the Town Planning Scheme (first varied). Mr. Desai contended that for that very purpose, the variation was proposed and the first varied scheme is sanctioned. Mr. Tirthraj Pandya as well as Mr. Desai, learned cousel appearing for the respective respondents submitted that the appeal does not require any consideration and the same deserves to be dismissed.
8. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
9. We have considered the submissions made and also perused the original record submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities.
10. Before considering the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of the Page 12 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 Act and Rules. Chapter V of the Act deals with the Town Planning Scheme.
Provisions of the Act :
"41. Power of appropriate authority to resolve on declaration of intention to make scheme (1) Before making any town planning scheme under the provisions of this Act in respect of any area, the appropriate authority in consultation with the Chief Town Planner may, by resolution, declare its intention to make such a scheme in respect of such area. (2) Within twenty-one days from the date of such declaration (hereinafter referred to as the declaration of intention to make a scheme), the appropriate authority shall publish it in the prescribed manner and shall despatch a copy thereof alongwith a plan showing the area which it proposes to include in the town planning scheme to the State Government. (3) A copy of the plan despatches to the State Government under subsection (2) shall be open to the inspection of the public during office hours at the office of the appropriate authority."
"42. Making and publication of draft scheme (1) Within nine months from the date of the declaration of intention to make a scheme under section 41, the appropriate authority shall make a draft scheme of the area in respect of which the said declaration has been made and publish the same in the Official Gazette., alongwith the draft regulations for carrying out the provisions of the scheme: Provided that on application by the appropriate authority in that behalf, the State Government may, from time to time, by notification, extend the aforesaid period by such period or periods, as may be specified, therein so however, that the period or periods so extended shall not in any case exceed three months Page 13 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 in the aggregate.
(2) If the draft scheme is not made and published by the appropriate authority within the period specified in sub-section (1) or within the period extended under the proviso to that sub-section, an officer appointed by the State Government may make and publish in the official Gazette, a draft scheme for the area in respect of which the declaration of intention to make a scheme has been made within a period of nine months from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid period, or the extended period, as the case may be.
(3) If such publication is not made by the officer appointed under subsection (2), the declaration of intention to make a scheme shall lapse and for a period of three years from the date of such declaration, it shall not be competent for the appropriate authority to declare its intention to make any town planning scheme for the said area or for any part thereof."
"45. Reconstitution of plots (1) 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 sutiable for building purposes and where the plot as already built upon, to ensure that the building, as far as possible, complies with the provisions of the scheme as regards open spaces.
(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;Page 14 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022
C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
(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.
(3) Whereunder clause (k) of sub-section (3) of section 40, the purpose to which buildings or specified areas may not be appropriated have been specified, the buildings shall cease to be used for a purpose other than the purposes specified in the scheme within such time as may be specified in the final scheme and the person affected by the provision shall be entitled to compensation from the appropriate authority in the manner and according to the method prescribed:
Provided that in ascertaining such compensation the time within which the person affected was permitted to change the use shall be taken into consideration."
"48. Power of State Government to sanction draft scheme (1) The appropriate authority shall, within three months from the date of the publication of the draft scheme in the Official Gazette, submit the draft scheme with any modifications that may have been made therein under section 47 together with the objections which may have been communicated to it, to the State Government for sanction.
(2) If the State Government sanctions such scheme, it shall in such may think fit, the Page 15 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 State Government may, within three months from the date of its receipt, by notification, sanction such scheme with or without modifications of subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose or refuse to sanction it. 45 "However, the State Government may, if deemed fit, by notification in the Official Gazette, return the scheme to the appropriate authority to carry out such modifications as may be directed, including the direction to include or exclude any land in question in the scheme. The appropriate authority shall comply with the directions of the State Government and shall, after following the procedure as laid down under sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) or both of Sec. 42, submit the scheme within the specified time limit to the State Government."
(3) If the State Government sanctions such scheme, it shall in such notification state at what place and time the draft scheme shall be open for the inspection of the public."
"52. Contents of preliminary and final scheme (1) In a preliminary scheme, the Town Planning Officer shall:-
(i) after giving notice in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed form to the persons affected by the scheme, define and demarcate the areas allotted to, or reserved for, any public purpose, or for a purpose of the appropriate authority and the final plots;
(ii) after giving notice as aforesaid, determine in a case in which a final plot is to be allotted to persons in ownership in common, the shares of such persons;
(iii) 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 provisions of section 81;Page 16 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022
C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
(iv) determine the period within which the works provided in the scheme shall be completed by the appropriate authority.
"Explanation.- (i) For the purpose of this proviso 'Variation of a substantial nature"
means a variation which is estimated by the Town Planning Officer to involve an increase of ten percent in the costs of the scheme as is described in section 77 on account of the provisions of new works or the allotment of additional sites for public purposes included in the preliminary scheme drawn up by the Town Planning Officer.
(ii) If there is any difference of opinion between the Town Planning Officer and the appropriate authority as to whether a varition made by the Town Planning Officer is of substantial nature or not, the matter shall be referred by the appropriate authority to the State Government whose decision shall be final.
(2) The Town Planning Officer shall submit the preliminary scheme so prepared to the State Government for sanction and shall thereafter prepare and submit to the State Government the final scheme in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3).
(3) In the final scheme, the Town Planning Officer shall-
(i) 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 clause (f) of sub-section (i) of section 77;
(ii) determine whether the areas used, allotted or reserved for a public purpose or purposes of the appropriate authority are beneficial wholly or partly to the owners or residents within the area of the scheme;
Page 17 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
(iii) estimate the portion of 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 the 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;
(iv) calculate the contribution to be levied under sub-section (1) of section 79, on each plot used, allotted or reserved for a public purpose 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;
(v) determine the amount of exemption if any, from the payment of contribution that may be granted in respect of plots exclusively occupied for religious or charitable purposes;
(vi) estimate the increment to accrue in respect of each plot include in the scheme in accordance with the provisions of section 78;
(vii) calculate the proportion of the contribution to be levied on each plot in the final scheme to the increment estimated to accrue in respect of such plot under sub-section (1) of section 79;
(viii) calculate the contribution to be levied on each plot included in the final scheme;
(ix) determine the amount to be deducted from, or added to, as the case may be, the contribution leviable from a person in accordance with the provisions of section 79; (x) estimate with reference to claims made before him, after notice has been Page 18 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 given by him in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed 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; (xi) draw in the prescribed form the preliminary and the final scheme in accordance with the draft scheme:
Provided that the Town Planning Officer may make variation from the draft scheme, but no such variation, if it is of a substantial nature, shall be made except with the previous sanction of the State Government, and except after hearing the appropriate authority and any owners who may raise objections."
"54. Appeal:- (1) Any decision of the Town Planning Officer under clause (iii), (iv),
(vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 52 shall forth with be communicated to the party concerned in the prescribed form and any party aggrieved by such decision may within one month from the date of communication of decision, present an appeal to the Board of Appeal constituted under Sec. 55.
(2) (a) A Board of Appeal existing immediately before the commencement of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Guj. 2 of 1999) shall continue to hear the decide appeal until the date on which the Board of Appeal is constituted (hereinafter referred to as "the said date"), by the State Government under Sec. 55, and
(b) all appeals pending on the said date before any Board of Appeal shall stand transferred to the Board of Appeal so constituted."
"65.Powers of Government to sanction or Page 19 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 refuse to sanction the scheme and effect of sanction (1) On receipt of the preliminary scheme or, as the case may be, the final scheme, the State Government may-
(a) in the case of a preliminary scheme, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt, and
(b) in the case of a final scheme, within a period of three months from the date of its receipt, by notification, sanction the preliminary scheme or the final scheme or refuse to give sanction, provided that in sanctioning any such scheme, the State Government may make such modifications as may, in its opinion, be necessary for the purpose of correcting an error, irregularity or informality.
(2) Where the State Government sanctions the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, it shall state in the notification-
(a) the place at which the scheme shall be kept open for inspection by the public, and
(b) a date in which all the liabilities created by the scheme shall come into force:
Provided that the State Government may from time to time extend such date, by notification, by such period, not exceeding three months at a time, as it thinks fit. (3) On and after the date fixed in such notification, the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, as the case may be, shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act.
(4) The appropriate authority shall, after the preliminary scheme is sanctioned by the State Government under sub-sec.(2), complete the execution of such scheme within a period of two years from the date of the sanction of such scheme, failing which the State Government may take such actions against appropriate authority as it deems fit."
"67. Effect of preliminary scheme .-On the Page 20 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 day on which the preliminary scheme come into force-
(a) 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;
(b) all rights in the original plots which have been re-constituted into final plots shall determine and the final plots shall become subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer."
"68. Power of appropriate authority to evict summarily .-On and after the date on which a preliminary scheme comes into force, any person continuing to occupy and land which he is not entitled to occupy under the preliminary scheme shall, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, be summarily evicted by the appropriate authority."
"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."
Provisions of the Rules :
"26. Procedure to be followed by Town Planning Officer under section 51 and under sub-section (1) of section 52.- (1) For the purpose of preparing the preliminary scheme and final scheme the Town Planning Officer shall give notice in Form H of the date on which he will commence his duties and shall state the in the time, as provided in Rule 37 within which the owner of any property Page 21 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 or right which is injuriously affected by the making of a Town Planning Scheme shall be entitled under section 82 to make a claim before him. Such notice shall be published in the Official Gazette and in one or more Gujarati newspapers circulating within the area of the appropriate authority and shall be pasted in prominent places at or near the areas comprised in the scheme and at the office of the Town Planning Officer.
(2) The Town Planning Officer shall after the date fixed in the notice given under sub-rule (1), continue to carry on his duties as far as possible on working days and during working hours.
(3) The Town Planning Officer shall, before proceeding to deal with the matters specified in section 52, publish a notice in Form H in the Official Gazette and in one or more Gujarati newspapers circulating within the area of the appropriate authority. Such notice shall specify the matters which are proposed to be decided by the Town Planning Officer and State that all persons who are interested in the plots or are affected by any of the matters specified in the notice shall communicate in writing their objections to the Town Planning Officer within a period of twenty days (fifteen days in the cases provided in the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of the said rules) from the publication of notice in the Official Gazette. Such notice shall also be posted at the officer of the Town Planning Officer and of the appropriate authority and the substance of such notice shall be pasted at convenient places in the said locality.
(4) The Town Planning Officer shall give every person interested in any land affected by any particular of the scheme sufficient opportunity of stating their Page 22 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 views and shall not give any decision till he has duly considered their representations if any.
(5) If during the proceedings, it appears to the Town Planning Officer that there are conflicting claims or any difference of opinion with regard to any part of the scheme, the town Planning Officer shall record a brief minute in his own hand setting out the points at issue and the necessary particulars, and shall give a decision with the reasons therefore. All such minutes shall be appended to the scheme.
(6) The Town Planning Officer shall record and enter in the scheme every decision given by him. The calculations and estimates shall be set out and recorded in Form F. Form G and in other statements as may be prepared by the Town Planning Officer.
(7) The scheme as drawn up by the Town Planning Officer shall include particulars specified in rule 21 read with section 52.
(8) The component parts of the scheme shall be so arranged that they may be readily referred to in connection with the map and plans.
(9) The Town Planning Officer shall publish the scheme drawn up by him by notification in the Official Gazette in Form I and also by means of an advertisement in one or more local newspaper announcing that the scheme shall be open for the inspection of the public during office hours at his office and communicate forthwith the decisions taken by him in respect of each plot to the owner or person interested by the issue of the requisite extract from the scheme in Form J and Form K as the case may be. The town Planning Officer shall also inform the Page 23 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 President of the Board of Appeal about the publication of final scheme."
11. Before reverting to the submissions made, what is predominently challenged in the petition is the notice at Annexure-A dated 15.10.2015. The said notice is issued under Section 67 of the Act which provides for effect of preliminary scheme. It inter alia provides that all lands required by appropriate authority, unless it is otherwise determined in such scheme, shall vest absolutely in the appropriate authority free from all encumbrances from the date on which the preliminary scheme comes into force. The said scheme provides that all rights in the original plots which have been re-constituted into final plots shall determine and the final plots shall be subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer. The bare reading of the notice indicates that the Town Planning Scheme, i.e., Town Planning Scheme No.28 (Nava Wadaj) (First Varied) Final Scheme is sanctioned way back on 13.08.1998. The petitioners as owners of the land in question, i.e., original plot no.330 are informed that the land bearing Survey Nos.457/1 + 457/2, which was allotted original plot no.330 has vest absolutely in the appropriate authority free from all encumbrances and the Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is the owner of the same. The appellants have also been informed to give Page 24 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 the possession of the said land and on failure to do so, appropriate action, as provided under Section 68 of the Act, which gives power to the appropriate authority to evict summarily shall be taken, which has to be read with Rule 33 of the Rules.
12. Thus, the impugned notice is given based upon the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme, which was sanctioned on 13.08.1998. The said notice under Section 67 has to be and the same is in consonance with the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme, which is sanctioned and as per Form F, which is forming part of the record of this appeal as well as the writ petition. The land in question along with other two final plots have been reserved for the purpose of slum upgradation and in lieu of the same, the petitioner society has been given compensation as decided by the Town Planning Officer. Therefore, to contend that in the impugned notice blank is mentioned and no final plot is allotted is an erroneous reading of the same. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the appellants also preferred Civil Suit No. 901 of 1998 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. In para 3 of the plaint, it is mentioned that a notice of Kabja Ferfar (change of possession) under Section 67 is issued to the appellants, i.e., plaintiffs in the said suit dated 10.02.1998. Though the said suit came to be Page 25 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 withdrawn, none of the contentions which are raised in the petition were raised in the suit before the City Civil Court and the same came to be withdrawn on 29.12.2005 with a permission to file a fresh suit. Thus, the petitioners were well aware about the fact that the same is sanctioned in 1998 and change of possession as provided under Section 67 to inform the land owner about the effect of the preliminary scheme was known to the appellant. Thus, the contention raised by Mr. Nanavati, learned cousnel appearing for the appellants that the notice is blank is misleading and therefore, the contention that the notice is bad, deserves to be negatived.
13. Section 71 of the Act clearly postulates that a Town Planning Scheme can at any time be varied by a subsequent scheme made, published and sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thus, Section 71 gives power and authority to the appropriate authority to vary a Town Planning Scheme as if it is a new scheme varied by a subsequent scheme after following the procedure as prescribed under Section 41 read with relevant rules.
14. As can be seen from the record of the appeal, the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 28 (Nava Vadaj) was sanctioned on 10.12.1980 and the Final Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned on Page 26 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 05.04.1982 and the said final scheme came into effect from 25.05.1982. As can be seen from the record of the appeal, the Town Planning Committee of the Respondent No.3 Corporation passed a resolution on 17.01.1985 proposing to vary the scheme under Section 71 of the Act as provided under Section 41(1) of the Act. As the record unfolds, the said resolution was published in the official gazette on 16.02.1985. As observed by the learned Single Judge and so also it is evident from the record of the appeal, the said notification was also published in daily newspaper "Jai Hind". The personal notice of intention to vary the Town Planning Scheme in question was also given as provided under Rule 17 of the Rules to the Petitioner Society on 11.03.1986. Thereafter, the draft scheme was published in official gazette on 25.07.1986 and in Times of India on 27.07.1986.
15. It is an admitted possession that even after such publication, the petitioners did not file any objection. Ultimately, the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act sanctioned the draft (First Varied) Town Planning Scheme as provided under Section 48 (2) of the Act on 26.03.1987. On the draft (First Varied) Town Planning Scheme being sanctioned under Section 48(2) of the Act, the Town Planning Officer was appointed.
Page 27 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
16. The Town Planning Officer, on assuming charge as Town Planning Officer, drew preliminary scheme as provided under Section 52 of the Act. The Town Planning Officer followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 26 of the Rules. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 26 does not prescribe for any individual notice but as recorded by the learned Single Judge, the Town Planning Officer gave personal notice to the petitioner on 19.11.1992 and as the same could not be served, the notice was affixed at the site with signature of two witness, i.e., Shri Rajendra A. Parmar and Shri Pramod K.B. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to note that it is not the case of the petitioners that they filed any objection. On the contrary, the original record as well as the record of the appeal show that no objections were raised by the apellants. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 provides that Town Planning Officer has to give every person interested in any land affected by any particular of the scheme sufficient opportunity of stating their views and shall not give any decision till he has duly considered their representations if any. Thus, Sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 shall trigger only when the representation is made by any party. In absence of any representation, it cannot be contended that the Town Planning Officer has not followed the procedure as prescribed under sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 26. The record of the appeal as Page 28 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 well as the original record clearly shows that the Town Planning Officer has published the scheme drawn by him by way of notification by publishing it in official gazette as well as in one or more local newspaper. As the record unfolds, the Town Planning Officer after drawing the preliminary first varied scheme, published the notice in daily newspaper on 15.11.1994 as prescribed under Rule 26(9) of the Rules and thereafter, the State Government after examining the scheme, as a whole, sanctioned the Town Planning Scheme No. 28 (Nava Vadaj) under Section 65(3) of the Act vide notification dated 13.08.1998.
17. As observed hereinabove, the Town Planning Officer drew final scheme and it was also referred to Board of Appeal as provided under Section 54 of the Act and the State Government sanctioned the Final Town Planning Scheme under Section 65 of the Act on 05.04.1982. Thus, it clearly bornes out that after scrupulously following the procedure as provided under Sections 41, 42, 64 and 65 in particular read with Rules 16, 17 and 26 in particular, the State Government has sanctioned the scheme. We do not find that there is any error or irregularity or informality in the scheme and therefore, the contention raised by the appellant deserves to be negatived.
Page 29 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
18. The record further indicates that even while drawing the final Town Planning Scheme, as provided under Section 52(3) of the Act, the Town Planning Officer has scrupulously followed the procedure and as per the final Town Planning Scheme, the appellants have been granted compensation of Rs. 1,75,425/-. Again referring to the impugned notice issued by the appropriate authority under section 67, it would be noteworthy that the contention that there is blank in the notice as far as allotment of final plot is concerned, is dehors the final scheme as sanctioned. Section 54 of the Act provides for an appeal before the Board of Appeal as constituted under Section 55 of the Act. Having published the final scheme in accordance with the Act and Rules, the person aggrieved has therefore the remedy to challenge the variation of the final plot/plot in question as provided under Section 54 of the Act. However, in the instant case, the appellants have not filed any appeal and the final scheme was sanctioned under Section 65 of the Act vide notification dated 13.08.1998.
19. Thus, from the facts, it transpires that the intention of the appropriate authority, i.e., the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to vary the scheme relates back to 17.01.1985 and even after 36 years, the scheme is yet to be implemented and even if the date of final scheme Page 30 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 is taken into consideration, even after 23 years, the scheme is waiting for its implementation. The proceedings of the scheme which are on record of the appeal shows that at every stage, the procedure has been followed as prescribed under the Act and Rules (para 2.2- page 95-101). The record indicates that at no point of time, the appellants have raised any objection or have filed any representation and therefore, it cannot be said that there is breach of principles of natural justice. Rule 26 of the Rules does not provide for any personal or individual notice as it was provided under Rule 21(3) of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955.
20. As held by this Court in the case of Shilpa Park Co.Op Housing Society Ltd. v. Surat Urban Development Authority & ors. reported in 1996(2) GLR 707, it is observed thus -
"9. While dealing with the preliminary objection, it would be necessary to read Section 65 of the Act of 1976, thus:
On receipt of the preliminary scheme or, as the case may be, the final scheme, the State Government may -
(a) in the case of a preliminary scheme, within a period of two months from the date of its receipt, and
(b) in the case of final scheme, within a period of three months from the date of receipt, by notification, sanction the preliminary scheme or the final scheme or refuse to give sanction, provided that in sanctioning Page 31 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 any such scheme, the State Government may make such modifications as may, in its opinion, be necessary for the purpose of correcting an error, irregularity or infirmity, Sub-section (2) provides that -
The scheme shall be kept open for inspection by the public, and Sub-section (3) provides that -
On and after the date fixed in such notification, the preliminary scheme or the final scheme, as the case may be, shall have effect as it were enacted in this Act. The question raised before the Full Bench in Dungarlal's case (supra) was whether before finalisation of the Town Planning Scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, the Town Planning Officer was required to be issued special notice under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 to the person who claims to be tenant of whole or some portion of the land. Before the Full Bench two questions were raised - firstly, whether special notice to individual under Rule 21(3)(4) of the Act of 1976 of at least 3 days duration is mandatory; and secondly whether the finally sanctioned scheme, in view of the provisions of Section 65(3) is immune from challenge being a legislative Act. So far as the first question is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kaushikprasad Chandulal Mahadevia v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in 1970 GLR 993, took the view the Rule 21 is a salutary rule intended to safeguard the property rights of citizens who are affected by making of the Town Planning Scheme. Again in the case of Mohanlal Jesinghbhai v. P.J. Patel reported in 1970 GLR 1035, the Court held that behind Rule 21 Clause (4) clearly is that all must have a opportunity of stating their views in Page 32 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 making their representation before a decision is taken by the Town Planning Officer affecting them. The Court further held that a tenant of the land to be acquired is a person affected within the meaning of Clause (4) of Rule 21. Both the aforesaid decisions were referred in Dungarlal's case (supra) for reconsideration to the Full Bench. The Hull Bench, after examining the various provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1959 and the Rules, held that the two decisions referred in 1970 GLR at pages 993 and 1035 were wrongly decided only to the extent that a right to individual notice under Rules 21(3) and 21(4) is held to be so mandatory as to have a nullifying consequence. The Court held that Sub-rules (3) and (4) are merely additional procedural safeguards and not the essential minimum requirements. So far as the second question is concerned, the Full Bench held that the validity of legislative measure can be gone into even in writ jurisdiction only to the limited extent, i.e.
1. Whether there is any transgression of jurisdiction of authorities concerned,
2. Whether the scheme is finally emerged is totally inconsistent with the Act and,
3. Whether the minimum statutory essentials are not complied with and as such there is fundamental breach resulting into total lack of jurisdiction,
4. It was also held that the other procedural errors or defects that would render a scheme which has become legislative measure and part of the Act liable to attract or challenge in a Court on the ground that it is null and void. This view endorsed by another Full Bench in the case of Saiyed Mohammed v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported in 1977 GLR 549. The Supreme Court in Jaswantsingh's case (supra) has overruled Page 33 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dungarlal's case (supra) only to the extent of first part of its judgment, i.e. with respect to non-compliance with the requirement of Sub-rules (3) & (4) of Rule 21. In Dungarlal's case, Kaushikprasad's case and in Mohanlal's case, the decisions rendered by the earlier two Division Benches were held to be wrongly decided. The Supreme Court reversed the said view and held that both the said judgments laid down the law correctly. It would be convenient to read para 15 of the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in 1992 (Suppl.) (1) SCC 5 as under:
Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the judgment in Kaushikprasad Chandulal Mahadevia v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Mohanlal Jesinghbhai v. P.J. Patel, Town Development Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, laid down the law correctly. The finding of the Full Bench in the first part of its judgment to the effect that non-compliance with the requirement of Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 21 does not vitiate the scheme is not sound in law.
Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court has reversed the judgment in Dungarlal's case only on the first question. Thus, the law laid down in Dungarlal's case on the second question is a good law being approved by the Apex Court.
10. So far as the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent that the decision referred to by the Supreme Court in Jaswantsingh's case has been distinguished by the Division Bench of this Court is concerned, it may be stated that it relates to the first question only. The question before the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 1608 of 1979 was whether before finalisation of the Town Planning Scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, the Town Planning Page 34 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 Officer was required to be issued special notice under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 to the person who claims to be tenant of some portion of the land. The petitioner in that case relied on the decision in the case of Jaswantsingh's case reported in 1992 (Suppl.)(1) SCC 5 and in another case Mansukhlal Jadavji's case (supra) . It was pointed out that the ratio laid down in the case of Jaswantsingh's case by the Supreme Court would not be applicable as Rule 21(3) of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 was substituted by Notification dated 30-5-1974 and as per the said substituted rule, a special notice is not required to be given to the interested person in any plot. In view of the amendment, the Division Bench of this Court held that after the amendment of Sub-rule (3), notice to each and every interested person is not required to be issued. The notices as provided under the substituted rule are required to be published in newspapers, official gazette, at the office of the Town Planning Officer and of the local authority. The substance of the notice is required to be posted at the convenient place in that locality. The Court, therefore, held that non-issuance of notice would not vitiate proceedings of the Town Planning Officer.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the position emerges is thus -
(1) In view of the substitution of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, by Notification dated 30-5-1974, no special notice is required to be given to every individual. Notice is required to be given only in cases where Statutes require to do so by specific provisions. (2) Once the final scheme is framed and sanctioned, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 65, it is immune from challenging except on the following grounds Page 35 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
(i) Where there is any transgression of jurisdiction of the authorities concerned,
(ii) Where the scheme is finally emerged is totally inconsistent with the Act and
(iii) Where the minimum statutory essentials are not complied with and as such there is fundamental breach resulting into total lack of jurisdiction."
21. Considering the facts of this case and the procedure followed by the Town Planning Officer while publishing, formulating the scheme and the State Government while sanctioning the scheme, has committed no error. Even in the case of Municipal Corporation v. Chelaram & Sons and another reported in (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 127 as well as in the case of M/s. Babubhai & Co. and another v. State of Gujarat and others reported in (1985) 2 SCC 732, the same relates to implementation of the scheme and such notice is contemplated under section 68 of the Act wherein the principles of natural justice have to be observed. The said case would not apply as the notice under Section 68 is issued for summary eviction read with Rule 33 of the Rules.
22. Even the judgment of this Court reported in Kishanbhai Hargovandas Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2010(4) GLR 2867 would not be applicable in the instant case as no change has been made by the State Government while sanctioning the Final Town Planning Scheme Page 36 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 28 (First Varied) (Nava Wadaj), preliminary and/ or final scheme and therefore, the contention that there is a breach of principles of natural justice is without any basis. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 508 and is correct in coming to the conclusion that there is no breach of principles of natural justice.
23. At this stage, it deserves to be noted that the suit was filed in the year 1998 and withdrawn on 29.12.2005 and thereafter, after 17 years, the present petition is filed only to throttle the implementation of the validly published, prepared and sanctioned Town Planning Scheme wherein the land in question is reserved for public purpose of slum upgradation, which is the need of the hour. Even weighing the public interest enshrined for very purpose for which it has been reserved, does not call for any interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. As provided under Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 33 of the Rules, as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Babubhai & Co. (supra), the Corporation, as an implementiing authority, is duty bound to Page 37 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022 C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 implement the scheme. It is hoped and expected that the Corporation as an implementing authority, shall implement the scheme which is awaiting its implementation since 1998 as expeditiously as possible.
24. We are in total agreement with the observations and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any error, which requires any variation. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, no case for variation under Section 70 has been made out by the appellants and even at the cost of repetition, it deserves to be noted that the impugned notice under Section 67 is misread by the appellants as the appellants have been granted compensation of Rs. 1,75,425/- in lieu of their original plot. The powers under Section 70 for variation of the scheme is only limited to correct an error, irregularity or informality and the scheme which has become the part of the Act way back in the year 1998 does not require any variation under Section 70 of the Act as no error or illegality or infirmity is found.
25. In view of the above, all the contentions raised by the appellant deserves to be negatived and the appeal being misconceived, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Page 38 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022C/LPA/866/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 Connected Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) BIJOY B. PILLAI Page 39 of 39 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:34:14 IST 2022