Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In respect of the third question the High Court held that the decree for specific performance could be enforced subject to conditions but for the said purpose it was not necessary to remand or reverse the decree and it could be modified imposing the condition. It, therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the specific performance as granted by the trial court subject to the condition of final declaration under Section 21 of the ULC Act being issued with regard to the land in question by the specified authority, the competent authority and the State of Gujarat in accordance with law. The authorities were directed to take a final decision either way with regard to the issue of the declaration under Section 21 of the ULC Act at the earliest possible opportunity but in no case later than 15th August, 1998. On 20th June, 1998, an order was passed by the Competent Authority under Section 21(1) of the ULC Act approving the fifth scheme dated 29th January, 1979 and declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to hold as a power of attorney holder the land admeasuring 23,91,125 sq.mtrs. (approximately 598 acres) as additional vacant land for the purpose of Chapter III of the ULC Act and has right to make maximum construction as admissible under the rules. The order dated 20th June, 1998 was challenged in a writ petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat. The said writ petition has been withdrawn to this Court to be heard and disposed of along with this appeal. The ULC Act has since been repealed during the pendency of this appeal by Repealing Act No.15 of 1999. The Repealing Act was passed by the Parliament on 22nd March, 1999 and was adopted by a Resolution passed by the legislature of State of Gujarat under Clause (2) of Article 252 of the Constitution, on 30th March, 1999. Reverting to facts, admittedly possession of the land in question was with original defendant No.1 when the suit was filed. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the possession was delivered to him either when the agreement was entered into or till date. The plaintiff is not in possession of the land. Declaration under Section 21 of the ULC Act had not been made when the suit was filed. It has been made after the passing of the impugned judgment and pursuant to directions contained therein. The said declaration, as already stated, is the subject matter of challenge in the transferred writ petition. One of the questions which falls for our determination is as to what rights the plaintiff is entitled to enforce prior to issue of declaration under Section 21 of the ULC Act and before the plaintiff is put into possession. Is the plaintiff entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement or is he entitled to sue for only damages? Now, with regard to documents executed between the plaintiff and original defendant No.1 the agreement and power of attorney were executed on the same day, i.e., 24th March, 1977. The affidavit-cum- declaration was executed by original defendant No.1 on 10th February, 1978. The plaintiff was to undertake the development of the property in the manner provided in the agreement in conformity with Section 21 read with rules and guidelines issued under the ULC Act. The original defendant No.1, as stipulated in the agreement, agreed that the plaintiff shall construct dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker sections of the society on his land. The delivery of possession by original defendant No.1 to the plaintiff is contemplated by clause (4). The construction as per scheme is contemplated under clause (13). Clause (17) deals with rescission of the agreement by either party. The said three clauses read as under :

It is common ground that the main purpose for which the agreement was entered into between the parties was the construction of residential houses for the weaker sections of the society in term of Section 21 of the ULC Act. Mr. Nariman contended on behalf of the appellants that under the applicable master plan the suit land is reserved for `open space' and residential houses cannot be constructed thereupon and, therefore, the agreement is incapable of specific performance. On the other hand, Mr. Dhanuka contended that the applicable master plan is the one that existed on the date when excess vacant land first acquired the character of such land, i.e., on enforcement of the ULC Act and according to the said master plan the land is reserved for residential houses. Further contention of learned counsel is that assuming modification of the master plan is required to be considered, even then there is no impediment in the implementation of the scheme inasmuch as there does not exist absolute bar for construction of residential houses. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the declaration dated 20th June, 1998 provides for obtaining of all requisite permissions whatever, if any, which may be required before commencing the actual construction or work. Further, it is contended, in case of inconsistencies, if any, between the provisions of Town Planning laws and the ULC Act, provisions of the ULC Act will prevail in view of overriding provisions as contained in Section 42 of the ULC Act. In the draft development plan dated 29th February, 1963 prepared under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, the entire area of Laxmi Vilas Palace Estate (except the block of land along the river Vishwamitri and on north and sough of the Zoo Road) was left undesignated. This excepted part of block of land was designated for agricultural use. The State Government on 21st September, 1976 issued a notification under Section 10(1) of the aforesaid Act sanctioning the draft development plan subject to the modifications, inter alia, that the part of the area of Laxmi Vilas Palace Compound which had been left undesignated in the development plan shall be designated for residential use under Section 7(a) of the said Act and the block of land situated along the river Vishwamitri and on north and south of the Zoo Road passing through Laxmi Vilas Palace which had been designated for agricultural use shall be released from the said designation and the land so released shall be reserved for recreational purposes under Section 7(b) of the Act. A further notification dated 17th May, 1975 under Section 10A(1) of the Act was issued by the Government of Gujarat proposing to modify the development plan dated 21st September, 1970 providing that the lands of Laxmi Vilas Palace shown as residential zone in the sanctioned development plan Vadodara shall be released from the said use and the lands thus released shall be reserved for open space under Section 7(b) of the Act as shown in the plan. A notification dated 16th January, 1978 issued by the Gujarat Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10A of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 sanctioning the variations proposed by the notification dated 17th May, 1975 to Final Development Plan dated 21st September, 1970 notified 15th March, 1978 as the date from which the variations would come into force. By clause (23) of the Schedule appended to the said notification, it was provided that the land of Laxmi Vilas Palace shown as residential zone in the sanctioned development plan of Vadodara shall be released from the said use and the lands thus released shall be reserved for open space under Section 7(b) of the said Act. Mr. Dhanuka is, however, right in contending that the notification dated 16th January, 1978 never became operative for the reason that before the said notification came into force, the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 was repealed w.e.f. 1st February, 1978 and the said notification was not saved under Section 124(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, which came into force w.e.f. 1st February, 1978.

The facts of Atia Begum's case show that it is a case which relates to quantification of vacant land. The present case is not of quantification of vacant land. Atia Begum was not concerned with the question of Town Planning Laws and the schemes under Section 21 of the ULC Act which is one of the principle question with which we are concerned here. It was not held in Atia Begum that planning and development which is a state subject would stand frozen on 17th February, 1976. The said decision cannot be read as laying down the law that for all and every purpose, the master plan as in existence on 17th February, 1976 will freeze. We leave open the question whether even for the purpose of quantification of vacant land that has become such after 17th February, 1976, would the position in regard to the master plan as existing on 17th February, 1976 remain unaltered or not. In the present case, on this aspect, it is not necessary to examine the correctness of the decision in Atia Begum's case. It deserves to be emphasised that by passing a resolution under clause (1) of Article 252, the State Legislature only surrendered the right to legislate in respect of laws relating to the imposition of a ceiling on the holding of urban immovable property in excess of the ceiling and all matters connected therewith or ancillary and incidental thereto in favour of the Parliament by law. It was only a limited surrender in terms of the said resolution. The aspect of Town Planning and Development by the State has not been surrendered. The imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property is an independent subject. The primary object of the Act, as already noticed, was to prevent the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein, and to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good. Basically one uniform policy is fully understandable on such a subject and that is why on this aspect there was surrender by most of states in favour of the Parliament. The town planning, however, is altogether an independent and different subject. It is a State subject. It differs from State to State. It cannot be said that by surrendering its right to legislate on the aspect of imposition of ceiling on urban immovable property, the State Legislature also surrendered the right of development and town planning. These are essentially the rights within the purview of the State Government. The object of the ULC Act is not to sanction or permit development in the States contrary to their statutory town planning laws. The development and the town planning is an ongoing process. It goes on changing from time to time depending upon the local needs. The definition of `master plan' contemplates the plan prepared under any law `for the time being in force' or `in pursuance of an order made by the State Government for the development of such area or part thereof and providing for the stages by which such development shall be carried out'. The definition does not contemplate a static master plan. For claiming the benefit of Section 21, the construction of the dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker sections of the society on the land has to be if permissible as per relevant master plan when the scheme is considered by the authorities for sanction. If the land use requires the land to be used for some other purpose, it cannot be said that to grant benefit under Section 21, the land should be permitted to be used for construction of residential units. It was not intended and could never have been intended that Section 21 will take away the State power of town planning or on coming into force of the ULC Act, the Master Plan would freeze. The Rules made under the ULC Act further make the position quite clear. Rule 11-A was introduced and brought into force by amendment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules on 19th December, 1977. Rule 11-A reads as under : "11-A. Terms and conditions subject to which a person may be permitted to continue to hold excess vacant land under sub-section (1) of Section 21.-The terms and conditions subject to which the competent authority may permit a person to continue to hold vacant land, in excess of the ceiling limit, under sub-section (1) of Section 21, for the construction of dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker sections of the society in accordance with any scheme shall be the terms and conditions specified in Schedule 1-A."

A bare reading of the aforesaid provision shows that it is not applicable to Section 21 of the ULC Act. Orders sanctioning schemes under Section 21 have not been saved by Section 3. The contention urged on behalf of the appellants and also the State Government is that the schemes under Section 21 are not saved by Section 3 of the ULC Act. Admittedly, the land has not vested with the Government under Section 10(3). Possession continues to be with the appellants. Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel for the State Government as well for the authorities has argued that the necessary consequence of the repeal, on the facts of the present case, is that the land would be free from any constraints to which it may have been subjected under the ULC Act. Mr. Dhanuka, however, contended that Section 3 of the repealing Act is not exhaustive. Relying upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, learned counsel submits that the repeal does not affect rights accrued in favour of the plaintiff under the ULC Act. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, inter alia, provides that where any Central Act repeals any enactment, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect anything duly done or affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed.