Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.39 seconds)Section 68 in The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 40 in The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Babulal Badriprasad Varma vs Surat Municipal Corpn. & Ors on 2 May, 2008
Thus, the contention about individual notice or violation of the principles
of natural justice are misconceived in light of the aforesaid observation.
Further, as observed in the judgment in the case of Babulal Badriprasad
Varma v. Surat Municipal Corporation & ors. (supra), the contention
about individual notice is misconceived.
Dungarlal Harichand vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 4 August, 1976
22. Further reference can also be made to the underlying purpose and
the legislative intent of such Act which has been considered by the earlier
Full Bench of this High Court in a judgment in the case of Dungarlal V.
State, reported in [1976] XVII GLR 1152, wherein it has been observed,
"For proper framing of schemes and implementing them, the individual rights
are made subordinate to the wider social interests of the society and civil
amenities. The individual interests are not allowed to outweigh and prevail over
the wider social interests so as to thwart or torpedo salutary social schemes of
Town Planning for the benefit of the public as a whole. Schemes such as the
one with which we are concerned ought not to be allowed to suffer and
individual interests have to be subordinated so as to subserve public good as
they are to be expeditiously implemented in accordance with the true legislative
intention of the Act. An elaborate procedure is prescribed under the Act and the
Rules to achieve the desired objective."
The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs Manilal Gordhandas & Ors. Etc. Etc on 11 September, 1996
5. Learned advocate Shri Qureshi also submitted that had an
Page 3 of 14
C/SCA/8479/1997 JUDGMENT
opportunity been given to raise the objections, they could have raised the
objections to point out that the members of the Association are doing the
work/business and therefore there was no need for the proposed
construction including the swimming pool, etc. and no public interest
could be served. He has also stated that even assuming that notice under
sec. 68 is served, it has to be by AUDA and not by the Corporation as the
Corporation is not the implementing authority. He submitted that the
provisions of sec. 23(2) were amended in 1995, whereas the notice under
sec. 68 were issued in 1990, where the Municipal Corporation could not
be the authority and was not empowered for implementation and
therefore the present petition may be allowed. Learned advocate Shri
Qureshi also submitted that though the notice is said to have been issued
in 1990, till 1997 no steps were taken and therefore if there is a delay,
the scheme cannot be implemented as it is required to be implemented
within a prescribed period. He also submitted that earlier Special Civil
Application No. 5079 of 1990 was filed under the ULC Act and it has an
overriding effect and stay was operating and therefore also it could not
have been implemented. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development
Authority v. Manilal Gordhandas and ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 2130
(para 16). He has also referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of
this High Court in the case of Kishanbhai Hargovandas Patel & anr. v.
State of Gujarat & ors., reported in 2010(4) GLR 2867.