Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) determine whether the areas allotted or reserved for the public purpose or purposes of the Planning authority are beneficial wholly or partly to the owners or residents within the area of the scheme;
(vi) estimate the proportion of the sums payable as compensation on each plot used, allotted or reserved for the public purpose or purposes of the Planning 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;
(vii) determine the proportion of contribution to be levied on each plot used, allotted or reserved for the public purpose or purposes of the Planning Authority which is beneficial partly to the owners or residents within the area of the scheme and partly to the general public;
(viii) determine the amount of exemption, if any, from the payment of the contribution that may be granted in respect of plots or portions thereof exclusively used or occupied for religious or charitable purposes at the date of which the final scheme is drawn up under Clause (xviii) of this sub-section;
"34. It was next contended that the denial of the solatium of 15 per cent (or 30 per cent, as the law now is) of the market value of the land in addition to the compensation payable for lands taken by the local authority for purposes of the Scheme makes the Act discriminatory. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, in which it is held that the different terms of compensation for land acquired under tow Acts would be discriminatory. In that case the petitioner was a tenant of some field in a village. He had applied to the Agricultural Land Tribunal under a local Act for fixing the purchase price of the said field. The land in question however was acquired under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936. Aggrieved by the said acquisition he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the validity of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 on various grounds one of the grounds being that the said act empowered the acquisition of the land at prices lower thanthose payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He urged that the denial of the solatium at 15 per cent of the market value was discriminatory. The High Court held that as the acquisition was by the State in all cases where the property was required to be acquired for the purposes of a scheme framed by the Trust and such being the position, it was not open to the State to acquire any property under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Improvement Trust Act, without paying the solatium also. It was therefore held by the High Court that the paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) insofar as they added a few Clause 3(a) to Section 23 and a proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were ultra vires as violating the guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution. On appeal the judgment of the High Court was affirmed by this Court by the above decision. The provisions under consideration in the above decision corresponds to Section 11 and to Section 84 of the Act, which we are now considering. Section 59 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 provided that the Trust might, with the previous sanction of the State Government acquire land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modified by the provisions of the said Act for carrying out any of the purposes of the said Act. But the provisions which are questioned before us are of a different pattern altogether. They deal with the preparation of a scheme fork the development of the land. On the final scheme coming into force the lands affected by the scheme which are needed for the local authority for purposes of the scheme automatically vest in the local authority. There is no need to set in motion the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 either as it is or as modified in the case of acquisition under Section 11 or Section 84 of the Act. Then the Town Planning Officer is authorised to determine whether any reconstituted plot can be given to a person whose land is affected by the scheme. Under Section 51(3) of the Act the final scheme as sanctioned by the Government has the same effect as if it were enacted in the Act. The scheme has to be read as part of the Act. The scheme has to be read as part of the Act. Under Section 3 of the Act all rights of the private owners in the original plots would determine and certain consequential rights in favour of the owners would arise therefrom. If in the scheme, reconstituted or final plots are allotted to them they become owners of such final plots subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer in the final scheme. In some cases the original plot of an owner might completely be allotted to the local authority for a public purpose. Such private owner may be paid compensation or a reconstituted plot in some other place. It may be a smaller or a bigger plot. It may be that in some cases it may not be possible to allot a final plot at all. Sections 67 to 71 of the Act provide for certain financial adjustments regarding payment of money to the local authority or to the owners of the original plots. The development and planning carried out under the Act is primarily for the benefit of public. The local authority is under an obligation to function according to the Act. The local authority has to bear a part of the expenses of development. It is in one sense a package deal. The proceedings relating to the scheme are not like acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Nor are the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made applicable either without or with modification as in the case of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936. We do not understand the decision in Nagpur Improvement Trust's case. (AIR 1973 SC 689) (supra) as laying down generally that wherever land is taken away by the Government under a separate statute compensation should be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only and if there is any difference between the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the compensation payable under the statute concerned the acquisition under the statute would be discriminatory. That case is distinguishable from the present case. In State of Kerala v. T.M. Peter, also Section 34 of the Cochin Town Planning Act which came up for consideration was of the same pattern as the provision in the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 and for that reason the Court followed the decision in the Nagpur Improvement Trust's case (supra). But in that decision itself the Court observed at pages 302 and 303 (of SCR) : (at p. 1446) of AIR) thus:-

To consider this submission of the learned counsel it is necessary to consider the setting of the provisions of the provisions and the scheme thereof.

Firstly, Chapter V provides for provisions relating to permission and sanction of the town planning scheme. Section 59 contemplates preparation and contents of the town planning scheme. It provides for various proposals to be specified while drafting a town planning scheme. Under Section 61, a Planning authority in consultation with the Director of Town Planning is required to make a draft scheme for the area in respect of which a declaration has to be made. Section 64 of the Act provides for the contents of such a draft scheme. Section 64(b) of the said Act provides for reservation, acquisition or allotment of land required for the purpose of preparation of the town planning scheme under Section 59. It also provides for putting a similar land use for various purposes. Section 65 provides for reconstitution of the plot and also further provides for draft of the scheme to contain various proposals in respect of reconstitution of such plots. This provision also empowers the State Government to provide for transferring ownership of a plot of land under the said scheme. Under Section 67, the Government is obliged to invite objections to the draft scheme and under Section 68 the parties are required to sanction the draft scheme. The said draft scheme can be sanctioned by the State Government with or without modification pursuant to the objections received under the provisions of Section 67. Once under Sub-section (3) of Section 67 State Government sanctions the draft scheme then it shall be published for inspection to the various parties as a proposed final scheme. However, the same has not yet been brought into effect because the same is not yet finalised and sanctioned. Under Section 69 once a town planning scheme is declared then in that event in respect of the land covered under such scheme, the user is required to be confirmed to the prescribed user under such town planning scheme. The provision further provide for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 72 and requires to determine the various rights of the parties under such town planning scheme. While determining the rights under Sub-section (3) of Section 72 the arbitrator is required to estimate the value of the original plots as well as final plot and fix the difference between the value between the original and final plot and such difference is required to be included in the final scheme in accordance with the provisions contained in Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 97. The arbitrator is also required to estimate the compensation which will be payable for the loss of the area of the original plot in accordance with the provisions contained in Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 97. Thus, under Section 72 the arbitrator exercises and undertakes the valuation of the original plot, the price of the final plot which will be the market value after taking final plot which will be the market value after taking into account the benefits derived by such final plot holder. Thereafter the provisions of appeal are prescribed under Section 74 before the Tribunal. In an event if there is a dispute as to the quantum of compensation fixed by the arbitrator a person can prefer such an appeal. Section 75 provides that a Civil Judge, Senior Division or Principal Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court has to be appointed by the State Government constituting such an arbitral Tribunal. It is thereafter under Section 86 a final scheme is required to be sanctioned by the State Government. Section 86 of the MRTP Act, 1966 provides that in a period of four months from the date of receipt of the final scheme under Section 82 of the Act from the Arbitration that the Government is required to issue a notification in the official gazette sanctioning the said final scheme and only of such sanction being granted the said final town planning scheme comes into operation and consequently under Section 88 of the property vests in the State Government absolutely and free of encumbrances. In our view, the scheme of the Act in so far as pertains to Town Planning Scheme are concerned falls into three parts: (i) draft town planning scheme, (ii) proposed final town planning scheme. In our view, the scheme of the Act further indicates that the provisions of town planning scheme contained in Chapter V of the Act is a self-operative complete scheme by itself. It is like a self contained code. Thus, for the purpose of the compensation in respect of plots of land covered under the scheme and reserved or utilised for the public purpose under the scheme the respondents are liable to resort to the provisions of Section 126 of MRTP Act, 1966 and consequently acquired the same under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The words 'town planning scheme' used under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 126 is in respect of the town planning scheme which is yet not become final and sanctioned in exercise of power under Section 86 by the State Government though published as final scheme for inviting objections under Section 67 of the MRTP Act, 1966. Thus, the provisions of Section 126 (2) providing for acquisition of the land will apply prior to the said town planning scheme is finally sanctioned under the provisions of Section 86 of the said Act of 1966. The said provisions are provided for as enabling provisions because if the planning authority desires to acquire the land under Section 88(c) then such an enabling power is provided for by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the said MRTP Act, 1966. On such exercise under Section 126 of power the planning authority can acquire a land even before the final scheme is sanctioned under provisions of Section 86 of the Act. These enabling provisions are provided for to take into an emergent eventualities where due to exigencies the Sta Government cannot wait till completion of entire procedure prescribed under Chapter V and land is required for any urgent public purpose. Once such a method is applied then in that even the land will be acquired by applying Section 126 (2) of the said Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is so because unless the final town planning scheme is sanctioned the property does not vest in the State Government under Section 88 (a) of the Act. Once the town planning scheme is finally sanctioned under Section 96 and compensation is finally sanctioned under Section 96 and compensation is finally determined by the decision of the Arbitrator and the property vests under the provisions of Section 88 in the State Government, the question of resorting thereafter to a further acquisition under Section 126 (2) in our opinion would not arise. We are of the further opinion that if the provisions of Section 126 (2) are read as an additional requirement in Chapter V providing for town planning scheme then in tha event even after the vesting of the land in the State Government under Section 88 the State Government will have to resort to acquisition proceedings under Section 126 (2) of the said MRTP Act 1966. In our opinion, such a construction of the scheme would be an absurd interpretation and make the whole scheme of the town planning meaningless.