CASE TITLE – Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
CASE NUMBER – Civil Appeal (16956-16957)
DATED ON – 10.05.2024
QUORUM – Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, two appeals have been filed under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1976’) with the Supreme Court of India. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (for brevity, ‘the Corporation’) prepared the Town Planning Scheme No.6, Paldi under the provisions of The Act of 1976. This required the Plaintiff’s father to give up 21.40% of his land, i.e., 4247 sq. yds./3552 sq. mts., to the Corporation for public purposes. For the remaining extent of 15576 sq. yds./13023 sq. mts., the Corporation allotted two separate final plots, viz., Final Plot No. 478, admeasuring 11686 sq. yds./9771 sq. mts., and Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring 3890 sq. yds./3252 sq. mts. The Corporation failed in allotting the Final Plot No. 463, due to it being occupied by slum dwellers. However, after the implementation of the second varied scheme, they offered the plaintiffs Final Plot No. 187, measuring 2278 sq. mts. where the land allotment was reduced by 974 sq. mts.. The Corporation also paid compensation for the shortfall of land @ Rs.25/- per sq. mt. under the scheme. Both the terms were accepted and unchallenged by the Plaintiffs. After which the plaintiffs sought an appeal with the Civil Court stating that the compensation was meager and that they should also be compensated as per the current land rates along with interest, which amounted to a total of Rs. 1,63,97,673. The Corporation filed the first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008 passed by a learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 4583 of 1998. The suit was filed by the appellants herein against the Corporation seeking compensation of ₹1,63,97,673/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. or, in the alternative, allotment of land, i.e., an extent of 974 sq. mts., in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of Ahmedabad. While the Trial Court rejected this claim, they had instructed the Corporation to provide an alternative extent of land measuring 974 sq. mts. And also asked the plaintiffs to return the amount provided as compensation by the Corporation, which was Rs.24,350. These two appeals recently brought forward, arise out of the common judgment dated 18.06.2013 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 3596 of 2009 and Cross-Objection No. 81 of 2010 in First Appeal No. 3596 of 2009. Thereby, the Division Bench allowed the first appeal filed by the Corporation and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the respondents in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the said respondents filed these appeals. The High Court held that it was not open to them to claim any damages, having accepted the smaller plot allotted to them under the varied scheme and the compensation for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ 25/- per sq. mt. without protest. The High Court, accordingly, concluded that the cross-objection deserved to be dismissed. It is on this basis that the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by the Corporation and dismissed the cross-objection of the plaintiffs.
ISSUES
- Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant failed perform its legal obligation to give vacant and peaceful possession of Final Plot No. 463 due to alleged reasons?
- Whether the plaintiff proves that the compensation awarded, for the difference of 974 sq. meter. At the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. meter, was merely an eye wash in view of the prevailing prices of land in Paldi area in the year 1991?
- Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to the interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on Rs. 5,83,500/- which have turned out in investment at compound rate of interest comes to Rs. 1,63,97,673/- as alleged?
- Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff had not raised any objection at the proper time as alleged?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 40 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes the making and the contents of a Town Planning Scheme and empowers the appropriate authority to make one or more Town Planning Scheme(s) for a development area
Section 41 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes the appropriate authority and it’s duty to inform Govt authorities about Town Planning Schemes,
Section 42 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes the proseger to the making and publication of a draft scheme and states that, within 9 months from the date of declaration of intention under Section 41.
Section 44 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Acr, 1976, prescribes the details of the contents of the draft scheme and provides that it should contain the particulars enumerated under it’s Clauses,
Section 45 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, pertains to the reconstitution of plots.
Section 47 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes the procedure for objections being raised against the draft scheme.
Section 48 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, empowers the State Government to sanction the draft scheme.
Section 50 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes the State Government to appoint a Town Planning Officer within one month from the date on which the draft scheme has been sanctioned and notified in the Official Gazette.
Section 51 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 , prescribes the duties of the Town Planning Officer.
Section 52 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 , prescribes the contents of the preliminary and final schemes.
Section 54 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes for an appeal against any decision of the Town Planning Officer.
Section 67 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes that the final plots shall become subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer.
Section 68 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes the procdure to evict a person on a land he is not entitles to occupy.
Section 71 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes when a town planning scheme be varied by a subsequent scheme.
Section 81 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, prescribes when a original plot can be tranferref into a Final Plot.
Section 82 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, Prescribes when and how an aggrieved person can claim compensation.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF
The plaintiffs claimed that the market rate of the land allotted to the plaintiffs was about ₹150/- per sq. yd. in the year 1963 and, therefore, the value of 3890 sq. yds. would come to ₹5,83,500/. They asserted that if this amount had been invested at 10% p.a. compound rate of interest, it would come to ₹1,63,97,673/-. 5 They prayed for compensation of ₹1,63,97,673/-. They further stated that the scheme was framed as per the provisions of the Act of 1976, whereby deduction of 21.40% of their land was necessitated, but they were finally allotted land with a further deduction of 974 sq. mts. illegally. They, therefore, sought allotment of that land in the alternative.
CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT
The suit, as framed, was not maintainable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it and grant the reliefs prayed for therein. The suit also required to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties, as the State Government had not been impleaded therein. Even on merits, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The plaintiffs were allotted Final Plot No. 187, measuring 2278 sq. mts., under the scheme, which had been varied after following the due procedure. As regards the shortfall of land, the plaintiffs were paid compensation @ ₹25/- per sq. mt. under the scheme itself and, as such, the plaintiffs accepted possession of Final Plot No. 187 and the compensation, in respect of the remaining area of land, without protest and without challenging the same. Therefore, it was not open to them to make out a grievance either concerning the remaining area of land and/or the quantum of compensation.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs, being well aware of the fact that Final Plot No. 187 allotted to them under the second varied Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, was of lesser area, accepted the same without any protest and without agitating a right to a larger area in the light of the initial allotment of Plot No. 463, and their conduct in depositing ₹24,350/- thereafter, implying receipt of the compensation amount for the shortfall area of 974 sq. mts. @ 25/- per sq. mt., foreclosed their right, if ₹ any, to either challenge the allotment of a plot of lesser area or to seek more compensation. It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to adduce evidence in support of their claim for this pre-determined sum. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced by them in support of the land values relevant to any point in time, be it of the original final plot or the final plot that was ultimately given to them. In the absence of such crucial material, the plaintiffs’ prayer for compensation necessarily had to be negated. Further, as there was never any guarantee that a plot owner who surrendered his land pursuant to a Town Planning Scheme would be allotted any land after reconstitution of the plots, the plaintiffs cannot assert any vested right in that regard. When this was contested in the Supreme Court, it held up the High Court’s decision, stating that it was completely justified, due to the appeals being bereft and should accordingly be dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
