Town Planning Scheme Already Sanctioned For Public Purposes: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash The Scheme And Grant Compensation To Appellants

The High Court made these observations while hearing an LPA wherein the Appellants had challenged the CAV judgement by the Single Judge which had refused to grant them compensation under the Town Planning Scheme ('Scheme').

Background

The Appellants and the family were owners of certain land allotted in a Town Planning Scheme at Ahmedabad. Subsequently, vide a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land was acquired by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ('AMC') with the intention to frame the Town Planning Scheme in 1964. This Scheme gained sanction from the Government under Section 28 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954. Pursuant to this Scheme, the Municipal Commissioner prepared proposals for the variation of the TP Scheme and these proposals were approved in 1980. Meanwhile, the predecessor in title of the Appellants made a representation requesting the release of certain land from reservation. However, the same was rejected by the Authorities. Accordingly, two Special Leave Applications were filed by various Appellants seeking declaration of the reservation having lapsed of the concerned land and that the AMC be restrained from disturbing the possession of the owners. Subsequent representations to the AMC by the Appellants were also rejected by the Authorities. After the rejection of the writ petition filed by the Appellant Nos 1 and 2, the LPA was filed.

The Appellants contended that the Single Judge rejected the petition erroneously since the Authority before the land was reserved in the Scheme, there was no intention to use the land for which documents were produced and hence, it ought to have been de-reserved. Further, the Authority was acting contrary to various notifications issued by the State Government by keeping more than 50% of the land.

Per contra, Respondent 2 contested that the decision of the representation made by the Appellants was never challenged by the Appellants 1 and 2. Significantly, it was argued, "as laid down by catena of decisions, once a land becomes part of the T.P. Scheme and it vests with the Authority free from all encumbrances." Moreover, the Authority for which the land was reserved, was not intended to be utilised but it could still be used for public purposes. Lastly, the judgement of the Single Judge was well reasoned and relied on several decisions to reach the impugned order.

Judgement

The Bench's foremost observation was that the land was reserved for the Postal Department and the Slum Clearance Board but it was not utilised for the said purpose. The land, thereafter, was vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The subsequent representations by the Appellants were rejected but the Appellants did not challenge the dismissal of the representation of 2014. The High Court noted that the Single Judge Bench had relied on Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra 1996(6) SCC 405 and other such judgements. The High Court noted the Single Judge Bench's remarks thus:

"Town Planning Scheme which has been sanctioned and has achieved finality as per Form-F under Rules 17 and 29 of the Rules,1976 showing redistribution and valuation statement available on record produced along with the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent corporation and it is clear that the petitioners have been allotted land in the varied final town planning scheme no.24(Manipur-Distribution-varied) and land admeasuring 7289 sq. mtrs of Final Plot No. 64/4 is provided for post and telegraph and slum clearance housing. The scheme has thus become final and therefore, no interference can be made as the same has become part of the statute."

The High Court affirmed that the plot no. 64/4 was clearly earmarked for public purpose and it could not be claimed by the Appellants under the TP Scheme which was already sanctioned.

Regarding the contention that the land was deducted by more than 50%, the Single Judge had averred that the scheme was already sanctioned and the Appellants had challenged it by more than 40 years later by seeking quashment of the scheme. As a result, the Appellants could not be granted any compensation or restoration of land, specifically one reserved for public purposes. Affirming this reasoned order of the Single Judge Bench, the High Court dismissed the LPA.

Case Title: SUKESHI VIJAYBHAI BHATT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Case No.: C/LPA/929/2021