# Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 401
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-05-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 16956-16957 of 2017
- **Bench:** A.S. Bopanna, Sanjay Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mrugendra-indravadan-mehta-and-others-v-ahmedabad-municipal-corporation-37759
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Trial Court decreed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs by accepting
the alternative prayer that they should be allotted an extent of 974
sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of
Ahmedabad, but rejected the main prayer for compensation with
interest. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first
appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation and non-suiting the
plaintiffs; Impugned judgment if liable to be set aside as contended
by the plaintiffs, on the ground that no points for determination
were framed therein, as required by Order 41 Rule 31, Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 41, r.31 - Gujarat Town
Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - ss.52, 54, 70, 71,
81, 82 - Plaintiffs' father owner of various plots surrendered
land pursuant to a Town Planning Scheme - The Corporation
allotted two separate final plots out of which possession of one
was delivered to the plaintiffs' father however, the possession
of the other plot i.e. Final Plot No.463 was not delivered - Town
Planning Scheme was varied later but without any alternative
plot being allotted in lieu of Final Plot No.463 - However, under
the second varied scheme, plaintiffs were offered Final Plot
No.187 which had a smaller area by 974 sq. mts., and as per
them they were offered meagre compensation @ ₹25/- per
sq. mt. for the deducted area of 974 sq. mts. - Suit filed by
plaintiffs against Corporation seeking compensation with
interest or, alternatively, for allotment of land, i.e., an extent
of 974 sq. mts., in any Town Planning Scheme in the western
zone of Ahmedabad - Suit decreed by Trial Court accepting the
alternative prayer, main prayer for compensation was rejected
- Appeal filed by the Corporation was allowed by High Court,
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
595
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs were rejected - Plea of the
plaintiffs inter alia that the judgment of the High Court is liable
to be set aside on the ground that no points for determination
were framed therein, as required by Or. 41, r.31 CPC:
Held: Mere omission to frame the points for determination would
not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that
the first appellate Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence
adduced by both parties - Thus, even if the first appellate Court
does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the
first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with
all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal -
Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC in
that regard is sufficient - High Court did set out all the issues framed
by the Trial Court in the body of the judgment and was, therefore,
fully conscious of all the points that it had to consider in the appeal -
Further, no particular issue that was considered by the Trial Court
was left out by the High Court while adjudicating the appeal - No
merit in the contention that the impugned judgment is liable to be
set aside on this preliminary ground, warranting reconsideration of
the first appeal by the High Court afresh - Furthermore, on merits,
plaintiffs, being well aware of the fact that Final Plot No. 187 allotted
to them under the second varied Town Planning Scheme, 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 - Further, upon the preparation or variation
of a Town Planning Scheme, the rights in the earlier plots of land
would stand extinguished - Thus, such rights, if any, which became
extinct ca

## Text

_Characters 0–39,957 of 73,874. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39957 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 594 : 2024 INSC 401
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others
v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(Civil Appeal Nos. 16956-16957 of 2017)
10 May 2024
[A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Trial Court decreed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs by accepting
the alternative prayer that they should be allotted an extent of 974
sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of
Ahmedabad, but rejected the main prayer for compensation with
interest. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first
appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation and non-suiting the
plaintiffs; Impugned judgment if liable to be set aside as contended
by the plaintiffs, on the ground that no points for determination
were framed therein, as required by Order 41 Rule 31, Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 41, r.31 - Gujarat Town
Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - ss.52, 54, 70, 71,
81, 82 - Plaintiffs' father owner of various plots surrendered
land pursuant to a Town Planning Scheme - The Corporation
allotted two separate final plots out of which possession of one
was delivered to the plaintiffs' father however, the possession
of the other plot i.e. Final Plot No.463 was not delivered - Town
Planning Scheme was varied later but without any alternative
plot being allotted in lieu of Final Plot No.463 - However, under
the second varied scheme, plaintiffs were offered Final Plot
No.187 which had a smaller area by 974 sq. mts., and as per
them they were offered meagre compensation @ ₹25/- per
sq. mt. for the deducted area of 974 sq. mts. - Suit filed by
plaintiffs against Corporation seeking compensation with
interest or, alternatively, for allotment of land, i.e., an extent
of 974 sq. mts., in any Town Planning Scheme in the western
zone of Ahmedabad - Suit decreed by Trial Court accepting the
alternative prayer, main prayer for compensation was rejected
- Appeal filed by the Corporation was allowed by High Court,
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
595
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs were rejected - Plea of the
plaintiffs inter alia that the judgment of the High Court is liable
to be set aside on the ground that no points for determination
were framed therein, as required by Or. 41, r.31 CPC:
Held: Mere omission to frame the points for determination would
not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that
the first appellate Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence
adduced by both parties - Thus, even if the first appellate Court
does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the
first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with
all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal -
Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC in
that regard is sufficient - High Court did set out all the issues framed
by the Trial Court in the body of the judgment and was, therefore,
fully conscious of all the points that it had to consider in the appeal -
Further, no particular issue that was considered by the Trial Court
was left out by the High Court while adjudicating the appeal - No
merit in the contention that the impugned judgment is liable to be
set aside on this preliminary ground, warranting reconsideration of
the first appeal by the High Court afresh - Furthermore, on merits,
plaintiffs, being well aware of the fact that Final Plot No. 187 allotted
to them under the second varied Town Planning Scheme, 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 - Further, upon the preparation or variation
of a Town Planning Scheme, the rights in the earlier plots of land
would stand extinguished - Thus, such rights, if any, which became
extinct cannot be the basis for a later cause of action - Also, the
quantification of compensation @ 25/- per sq. mt. for the shortfall
area of 974 sq. mts., which is relatable to the power of the Town
Planning Officer u/s.52(3)(x), was a decision which was amenable
to appellate review u/s.54 however, admittedly the plaintiffs did not
avail such remedy - Plaintiffs' claim for damages/compensation
was also not supported by material evidence - 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
596
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
any vested right in that regard - High Court justified in allowing the
first appeal filed by the Corporation and non-suiting the plaintiffs
in entirety - Impugned judgment not interfered with. [Paras 29-31,
34, 35, 39, 41 and 42]
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 -
ss.70, 71 - Plaintiffs argued that variation of the Town Planning
Scheme as permitted u/ss.70 and 71 must be read together:
Held: No merit in this submission - Section 70 deals with the power
to vary a Town Planning Scheme on the ground of error, irregularity
or informality while Section 71 is general in nature and states that,
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 70, a Town Planning
Scheme may at any time be varied by a subsequent scheme made,
published and sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the Act
of 1976 - The very fact that Section 71 begins with a non-obstante
clause referring to Section 70, manifests that the power thereunder
is not fettered in any manner, unlike the power under Section 70
which can only be exercised on the grounds of error, irregularity or
informality - Further, Section 71 postulates that the variation of the
Town Planning Scheme is to be made, published and sanctioned
in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1976, which would
mean that the entire exercise would be undertaken afresh upon
such variation, including reconstitution of the plots under Section
45 - Therefore, further reduction of a plot notified in the original
Town Planning Scheme is implicit in the general power of variation
vesting in the authority under Section 71 of the Act of 1976. [Para 37]
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 -
Scheme - Chapter 5 - Town Planning Schemes - ss.40-76 -
Discussed.
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 -
s.45 - Reconstitution of plots - Plaintiffs contended that the
1976 Act does not contemplate a second reduction in the
reconstituted plot area:
Held: Said argument does not merit acceptance - Section 45 deals
with reconstitution of plots - A plot owner who has surrendered his
original land for the purposes of the Town Planning Scheme is not
even assured of allotment of a reconstituted plot in lieu thereof - In
such an event, he is entitled only to compensation - Therefore, there
is no guaranteed right vesting in a plot owner who surrendered his
land in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme that he would
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
597
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
be allotted another plot of land in lieu thereof, much less, a plot
of the same area - It is an admitted fact that, when the plaintiffs'
father surrendered an extent of 19823 sq. yds./16575 sq. mts., he
was allotted a lesser extent of 15576 sq. yds./13023 sq. mts in two
plots in the original Town Planning Scheme, with a deduction of
21.40% - 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. [Paras 38, 41]
Case Law Cited
Union of India and Another v. Smt. Shanti Devi and
Others [1984] 1 SCR 217 : (1983) 4 SCC 542; N.
Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of A.P. [1994] Supp.
3 SCR 144 : (1994) 6 SCC 205 - held inapplicable.
State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others
[1969] 3 SCR 341 : (1969) 1 SCC 509; Prakash
Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat and Others [1985]
Supp. 3 SCR 1025 : (1986) 1 SCC 581; Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation and Another v. Ahmedabad Green
Belt Khedut Mandal and Others [2014] 11 SCR 855 :
(2014) 7 SCC 357; Maneklal Chhotalal and Others v.
M.G. Makwana and Others [1967] 3 SCR 65 : AIR
1967 SC 1373; Malluru Mallappa (Dead) through
Lrs. v. Kuruvathappa and Others [2020] 2 SCR 789 :
(2020) 4 SCC 313; Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam
Tiwari (Deceased) by Lrs. [2001] 1 SCR 948 : (2001)
3 SCC 179; Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and Others v.
S.P. Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs. [2016] 11 SCR 1 :
(2017) 2 SCC 415; G. Amalorpavam and others v. R.C.
Diocese of Madurai and Others [2006] 2 SCR 899 :
(2006) 3 SCC 224 - referred to.
Bhupendra Kumar Ramanlal and Others v. State of
Gujarat and Others (1995) 1 GLH 1124 : (1996) AIHC
109 - approved.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Gujarat Town Planning and
Urban Development Act, 1976; Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
Development Rules, 1979.
598
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Order 41 Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Town Planning
and Urban Development; Town Planning Scheme; Variation of a
Town Planning Scheme; Original Town Planning Scheme; Plot
owner surrendered land pursuant to Town Planning Scheme;
Vacant possession; Compensation; Points for determination not
framed; Alternative plot; Second varied scheme; Allotment of
land; Cross-objection; First appellate Court; Allotment of a plot of
lesser area; Right to a larger area; Initial allotment; Reconstitution
of plots; Reduction in the reconstituted plot area; Allotment of a
reconstituted plot; Rights in the earlier plots of land extinguished;
Market value of land in question at relevant point of time.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 16956-16957
of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2013 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in FA No. 3596 of 2009 and CRO No. 81
of 2010
Appearances for Parties
Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Amit Thakkar, Mrugen Purohit, Mahesh
Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal,
E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Appellants.
Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv., Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi,
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar, J.
1.
These two appeals 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 Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation (for brevity, 'the Corporation') and dismissed the crossobjection filed by the respondents in the first appeal. Aggrieved
thereby, the said respondents filed these appeals.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
599
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
2.
The Corporation filed the aforestated 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
said 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.
3.
The suit averments of the appellants (hereinafter, referred to as 'the
plaintiffs') were as follows: The plaintiffs' father was the owner of
original Plot Nos. 144, 150/P and 151/P in Survey Nos. 155, 209
and 210/P respectively, admeasuring 19823 sq. yds./16575 sq. mts.
While so, the Corporation prepared Town Planning Scheme No.6,
Paldi, under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1976'). The scheme
came into force from 01.08.1963, whereupon the plaintiffs' father was
required to contribute 21.40% of his lands, 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 vacant possession of Final Plot No. 478 was
delivered to the plaintiffs' father but the Corporation failed to deliver
possession of Final Plot No. 463 owing to its occupation by slum
dwellers. Town Planning Scheme No. 6 was varied thereafter in 1983
but without any alternative plot being allotted in lieu of Final Plot No.
463. The Corporation then prepared a second varied scheme in the
year 1986, viz., Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi (second varied),
which came into force on 26.04.1991. Thereunder, Final Plot No. 463
was taken back for the purpose of slum upgradation and the plaintiffs
were offered Final Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2724 sq. yds./2278 sq.
mts. In effect, the land allotment in their favour was reduced by 974
sq. mts., when compared with the area of the initially allotted plot.
The plaintiffs claimed that they were offered meagre compensation
@ ₹25/- per sq. mt. for the deducted area of 974 sq. mts, though
the value of the land in 1991 was about ₹6000/- per sq. mt. in Paldi
area. Even after the second variation of the scheme, in which Final
Plot No. 187 was allotted to them, the Corporation failed to give
vacant possession thereof, due to litigation between the Corporation
600
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and the occupant of the said plot. Ultimately, the Corporation was
able to handover possession of Final Plot No. 187 to them only on
31.01.1996, after the litigation came to an end. Thus, from 01.08.1963,
the date on which Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi (Principal
Scheme), came into force, the plaintiffs were deprived of possession
and enjoyment of 3890 sq. yds. of land, as was promised initially, as
the Corporation was not in a position to allot the said land to them
and on 31.01.1996, they were finally delivered possession of Final
Plot No. 187 admeasuring only 2278 sq. mts. The compensation
awarded to them for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per sq.
mt. was an eye wash in view of the prevailing prices of land in Paldi
area in the year 1991. The plaintiffs stated that they were, therefore,
constrained to sue for compensation for the damages suffered by
them due to the failure of the Corporation in discharging its duties
under the Act of 1976.
4.
Further, the plaintiffs pointed out that, in Town Planning Scheme No.
6, Final Plot No. 187 was reserved for construction of a school but
the Corporation permitted one Pulkit Trust to use it as a playground
in 1970. In the first variation of the scheme, Final Plot No. 187 was
reserved for a Civic Centre. Litigation cropped up between Pulkit
Trust and the Corporation and during the pendency thereof, the
Corporation prepared the second varied scheme, whereby the plaintiffs
were allotted Final Plot No. 187 though it was still in the occupation
of Pulkit Trust. The Corporation issued Notice dated 27.04.1992
under Section 68 of the Act of 1976 proposing to evict Pulkit Trust
from the land. After considering the objections raised by Pulkit Trust,
the Corporation informed it on 27.09.1994 that the same were not
accepted. Thereupon, Pulkit Trust filed Civil Suit No. 5415 of 1994,
which ultimately culminated with the dismissal of the SLP filed by it
before this Court in 1995.
5.
The plaintiffs further stated that, in the meantime, a public interest
litigation was instituted before the High Court of Gujarat vide Special
Civil Application No. 3980 of 1992. The plaintiffs also joined the litigation
thereafter as necessary parties. This case was finally dismissed by
the High Court on 3/4.04.1995. The plaintiffs stated that they had
suffered huge monetary losses as they were deprived of the benefit of
enjoying the property since 1963 and the failure of the Corporation in
allotting them suitable land, at the time the scheme was implemented,
amounted to failure in discharge of its statutory obligation and duty
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
601
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
under Sections 65, 68, 84 and 85 of the Act of 1976. 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/-. 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.
6.
The Corporation filed its written statement in the suit, stating as under:
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, admeasuring 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 with respect to the remaining
area of land and/or the quantum of compensation. If they had any
grievance with respect to the quantum of compensation, they were
required to prefer an appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1976.
Further, the plaintiffs could not pray for compensation for the extent
of 974 sq. mts. on the basis of the original Town Planning Scheme
No. 6, Paldi, as upon variation of the scheme, the original scheme
ceased to be in existence and stood substituted by the varied scheme
under Section 71 of the Act of 1976. The Corporation, accordingly,
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7.
On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
following issues for consideration: -
'1)
Whether the plaintiff proves that deceased father was
the original owner of land bearing S. Nos. 255, 209
602
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and 210/P (original plot Nos. 144, 150/P and 151/P)
admeasuring 19823 sq. yards in Paldi area?
2)
Whether the plaintiff proves that they required to be
allotted 155/6 sq. yards by Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation due to enforcement of Town Planning
Scheme?
3)
Whether the plaintiff proves that one final plot was
allotted on the original plot itself and another final plot
admeasuring about 3890 sq. yards bearing S. No. 403
was allotted to other side?
4)
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?
5)
Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant offered
Final Plot No. 187 admeasuring 2278 sq. mts.?
6)
Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant offered
a meagre compensation for the deducted area of 972
sq. meter. Even though the real value of the land in
1991 was about Rs. 6000/- per sq. meter, in Paldi area?
7)
Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant handed
over and allotted the possession of Final Plot No. 187
on dt. 3196 after litigation as alleged in the plaint?
8)
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?
9)
Whether the plaintiff proves that as alleged plots
handed over to him on different dates, so he suffered
huge monetary loss and deprived of benefit on
enjoyment of their property since 1963?
10) Whether the plaintiff proves that the prevailing market
rate of the allotted land to them was about Rs. 150/-
per sq. yard in 1963? And value of 3890 sq. yards
land would come to Rs. 5,83,500?
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
603
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
11) 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?
11A) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be allotted remaining
land of 974 sq. meter by the defendant as prayed for
in para 10(A) of plaint?
12) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad and
illegal for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged?
13) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not
maintainable as alleged?
14) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff had not
raised any objection at the proper time as alleged?
15) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is not
entitled to any special notice as alleged?
16) Whether the defendant proves that in plaintiff's case
they followed all the necessary procedure as alleged?
17) Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no
jurisdiction to try this suit?
18) What order and what decree?'
8.
After considering the evidence, oral and documentary, and
the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court answered Issue
Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,7, 8,9 and 11A in the affirmative and Issue Nos.
6,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 in the negative. Significantly, the
Corporation adduced no oral or documentary evidence. As regards
Issue Nos. 4 and 5, pertaining to the offer and allotment of Final
Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2278 sq. mts., the Trial Court noted that
Resolution dated 15.10.1986 was passed by the Town Planning
Committee, in which it was stated that in the place of Final Plot No.
463, it was advised that the same area in Final Plot No. 187 is to
be allotted. The Trial Court also noted the Resolution passed by the
Corporation on 30.10.1986 that the plaintiffs would be allotted the
same area of land which was earlier allotted in Final Plot No. 463.
The Trial Court further noted the correspondence thereafter, which
reflected that Final Plot No. 187 was being allotted to the plaintiffs
and that the change of allotment of plots resulted in a reduction of
604
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
974 sq. mts. of land. The Trial Court accordingly answered Issue
Nos. 4 and 5 in the affirmative. As regards Issue No. 6, pertaining
to the compensation for the reduced area of 974 sq. mts., the Trial
Court noted that though the plaintiffs pleaded that, in the year
1991 the value of the land in Paldi area was about ₹6000/- per
sq. mt., they did not produce a single document or corroborative
evidence to prove that fact. The issue was, therefore, answered
in the negative.
9.
As regards Issue Nos. 8 and 9 as to whether the compensation @
₹25/- per sq. mt. was merely an eye wash and whether the plaintiffs
suffered huge monetary losses, the Trial Court noted that Final Plot
No. 187 had been allotted to the plaintiffs in the place of Final Plot
No. 463, which was initially allotted to them in the year 1963 and for
which the rate was shown as ₹25/- per sq. mt. The Trial Court noted
that 33 years after the allotment of Final Plot No. 463, Final Plot No.
187 was handed over to the plaintiffs in January, 1996, and the same
rate of ₹25/- per sq. mt. was adopted for the compensation. The
Trial Court, accordingly, agreed with the plaintiffs that the said rate
was meagre and, therefore, the compensation offered at that rate
was merely an eye wash. As Final Plot No. 187 was handed over
to the plaintiffs 33 years after the allotment of the first plot and as
Paldi area could be considered a posh area, the Trial Court affirmed
that the plaintiffs had suffered monetary loss by the deprivation of
the benefit of enjoying the property since 1963. Issue Nos. 8 and
9 were accordingly answered in the affirmative.
10. As the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence in support of their claim
as to the market value of the land but as they had proved that the
Corporation failed to allot the remaining extent of 974 sq. mts. due
to total negligence, they were held entitled to get that extent of land.
Issue Nos. 10 and 11 were answered in the negative but Issue No.
11A was answered in the affirmative. Issue No. 12, pertaining to the
maintainability of the suit, was answered in favour of the plaintiffs
and in the negative.
11. Issue Nos. 13,14,15,16 and 17 were taken up together and the Trial
Court answered all of them also in the negative. As regards the bar
under Section 105 of the Act of 1976, the Trial Court opined that this
provision was not intended to protect injustice caused to the parties
and as the Corporation had failed to provide the second final plot till
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
605
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
the year 1996 and the same was given with a short fall in area and
with meagre compensation therefor, the said actions were not in good
faith and the statutory provision would not protect the Corporation.
12. The Trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit by accepting the
alternative prayer made by the plaintiffs that they should be allotted an
extent of 974 sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western
zone of Ahmedabad, but rejected the main prayer for compensation
of ₹1,63,97,673/- with interest thereon. The plaintiffs were, however,
directed to repay the amount of compensation received by them @
₹25/- per sq. mt. for the extent in question.
13. Assailing the aforestated judgment and decree, the Corporation
preferred the subject first appeal before the High Court while the
plaintiffs filed their cross-objection therein, apropos the rejection of
their main prayer for compensation to the tune of ₹1,63,97,673/-.
Before doing so, the plaintiffs deposited ₹24,350/-, being the amount
awarded towards compensation for 974 sq. mts. of land @ ₹25/- per
sq. mt., as directed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, by the impugned
judgment, the High Court held in favour of the Corporation by allowing
its appeal and against the plaintiffs by rejecting their cross-objection.
14. Perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that the High Court noted
the contentions of both parties and then extracted the issues framed
by the Trial Court in extenso. The High Court, however, did not frame
the points that arose for determination in the appeal, in terms of Order
41 Rule 31 CPC. The High Court then referred to the arguments
advanced on behalf of the parties and started the discussion on
merits from para 5.1 of the judgment. The High Court observed that
compensation had been paid for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @
₹25/- per sq. mt. and noted that it was not in dispute that the said
compensation amount had been accepted without protest. The High
Court also noted that the plaintiffs had not challenged the second
varied Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, under which they were
allotted Final Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2278 sq. mts., in lieu of the
originally allotted Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring 3890 sq. yds. The
High Court also took note of the fact that the plaintiffs supported the
second varied scheme before the Division Bench of the High Court
in Special Civil Application No. 3980 of 1992 and concluded that they
could not make out a grievance with regard to the non-delivery of the
remaining 974 sq. mts. of land.
606
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15. Reference was made by the High Court to Section 71 of the Act of
1976, which allowed variation of a Town Planning Scheme and it
was held that any right with respect to the remaining 974 sq. mts.,
on the basis of the original Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, no
longer remained in existence after such variation. The High Court,
accordingly, held that the Trial Court had erred in directing the
Corporation to allot 974 sq. mts. of land in any other scheme in the
western zone of Ahmedabad. The High Court also took note of the
fact that the Trial Court had opined that the compensation paid to
the plaintiffs for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per sq. mt. was
inadequate, which had led to the direction to the Corporation to allot
an equivalent extent of land in any other Town Planning Scheme,
while directing the plaintiffs to return the amount of compensation
paid to them. The High Court, thereupon, observed that once the
plaintiffs accepted Final Plot No. 187 and the compensation for the
974 sq. mts. of land @ ₹25/- per sq. mt. under the second varied
Town Planning Scheme, No. 6, Paldi, without protest, it was not
open to the Trial Court to pass any order which would tantamount
to further varying the scheme when it was not even challenged by
the plaintiffs.
16. As regards the inaction on the part of the Corporation in handing over
vacant possession of Final Plot No. 463, the High Court observed
that once the original Town Planning Scheme was varied, it was
not open to the plaintiffs to assert any grievance in relation to the
plot allotted to them under that scheme. As regards the inadequacy
of compensation, the High Court held that the Trial Court could not
have gone into that issue as no appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs
under Section 54 of the Act of 1976, if they were unhappy with the
quantum of compensation.
17. Insofar as the cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs is concerned, the
High Court noted that the Trial Court had not accepted their prayer
to award them compensation of ₹1,63,97,673/- as they had failed
to prove, by leading evidence, that at the relevant time in 1963 the
market price of the land was ₹150/- per sq. mt. The High Court further
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
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
607
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
the High Court allowed the first appeal filed by the Corporation and
dismissed the cross-objection of the plaintiffs.
18. Before we proceed further, it would be apposite to take note of the
statutory milieu pertinent to this case and the case law relevant
thereto. Chapter 5 of the Act of 1976 is titled 'Town Planning Schemes'
and comprises Sections 40 to 76. Section 40 deals with 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 40(3) states that a Town Planning
Scheme may make provision for the matters enumerated in clauses
(a) to (m) thereunder. Clause (jj) therein was, however, substituted
with effect from 01.05.1999. Clause (a) refers to laying out or relaying out of land, either vacant or already built upon, while clause
(d) relates to the construction, alteration and removal of buildings,
bridges and other structures. Clause (e) relates to the allotment or
ear-marking of land for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation
grounds, schools, markets, green-belts, dairies, transport facilities
and public purposes of all kinds. Section 41 requires the appropriate
authority, in consultation with the Chief Town Planner, to declare its
intention to make a Town Planning Scheme in respect of a particular
area and, within 21 days from the date of such declaration, publish
the same in the prescribed manner and dispatch a copy thereof to
the State Government, along with a plan showing the area which it
proposes to include in the Town Planning Scheme. A copy of such
plan shall be open to public inspection at the office of the appropriate
authority. Section 42 deals with the making and publication of a draft
scheme and states that, within 9 months from the date of declaration
of intention under Section 41, the appropriate authority shall make
a draft scheme of the area in respect of which the said declaration
was made and publish the same in the Official Gazette along with
the draft regulations for carrying out the provisions of the scheme.
Section 44 details the contents of the draft scheme and provides
that it should contain the particulars enumerated under Clauses (a)
to (h). Clause (a) pertains to the area, ownership and tenure of each
original plot while clause (b) relates to the particulars of land allotted
or reserved under Section 40(3)(e). Clause (c) relates to the extent
to which it is proposed to alter the boundaries of the original plot and
clause (e) requires a full description of all the details of the scheme
under Section 40(3), as may be applicable.
608
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
19. Section 45 of the Act of 1976 pertains to the reconstitution of plots and
Section 45(1) states that, in the draft scheme referred to in Section
44, the size and shape of every plot shall be determined, so far as
may be, to render it suitable for building purposes and where the plot
has already been built upon, to ensure that the building, as far as
possible, complies with the provisions of the scheme as regards open
spaces. Section 45(2) states that, for the purposes of sub-section (1),
the draft scheme may contain proposals as to the details mentioned
under clauses (a) to (e). This provision reads as under: -
'(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the draft scheme
may contain proposals-
(a)
to form a final plot by the reconstitution of an
original plot by the alteration of its boundaries,
if necessary;
(b)
to form a final plot from an original plot by the
transfer of any adjoining lands;
(c)
to provide with the consent of the owners that
two or more original plots which are owned by
several persons or owned by persons jointly be
held in ownership in common as a final plot, with
or without alteration of boundaries;
(d)
to allot a final plot to any owner dispossessed of
land in furtherance of the scheme; and
(e)
to transfer the ownership of a plot from one
person to another.'
20. Section 47 of the Act of 1976 provides for objections being raised
against the draft scheme and states that such objections are to be
made in writing within one month from the date of publication of the
draft scheme and the same should be considered by the appropriate
authority. Further, before submitting the draft scheme to the State
Government, the appropriate authority may modify the scheme as it
thinks fit. Section 48 empowers the State Government to sanction the
draft scheme. Section 50 requires 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
and the duties of such Town Planning Officer are set out in Section
51. Thereunder, the Town Planning Officer is required, within twelve
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
609
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
months from the date of his appointment, to sub-divide the Town
Planning Scheme into a preliminary scheme and a final scheme,
following the prescribed procedure. Section 52 details the contents of
the preliminary and final schemes. Insofar as a preliminary scheme
is concerned, the Town Planning Officer is required, under Section
52(1), to give notice in the prescribed manner to the persons affected
by the scheme and define and demarcate the areas allotted to or
reserved for a public purpose or for the purpose of the appropriate
authority and the final plots. Under Section 52(1)(iii), the Town Planning
Officer is empowered to provide for the total or partial transfer of any
right in an original plot to a final plot or provide for the transfer of any
right in an original plot in accordance with the provisions of Section
81. Section 52(2) requires the Town Planning Officer to submit the
preliminary scheme so prepared to the State Government for sanction
and to, thereafter, prepare and submit to the State Government the
final scheme in accordance with the provisions of Section 52(3).
21. In the said final scheme, the Town Planning Officer is required, under
Section 52(3), to fix the difference between the total of the values
of the original plots and the total of the values of the plots included
in the scheme, in accordance with the provisions of Section 77(1)
(f). Under Clause (iii) of Section 52(3), the Town Planning Officer is
required to estimate the sums payable as compensation on each plot
used, allotted or reserved for a public purpose or for the purpose
of the appropriate 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. Clauses
(iv) to (ix), thereafter, deal with the Town Planning Officer's power
to calculate and determine the contribution to be made by the plot
owners in relation to the plots used, allotted or reserved for public
purposes or for the purpose of the appropriate authority which is
beneficial partly to the owners or residents within the area of the
scheme and partly to the general public. This would also include the
calculation of the contribution to be levied on each plot owner under
the final scheme. Section 52(3)(x) requires the Town Planning Officer
to estimate, with reference to claims made before him, after giving
due notice in the prescribed manner and form, the compensation
to be paid to the owner of any property or right injuriously affected
by the making of the Town Planning Scheme, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 82. Section 54 provides for an appeal
610
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
against any decision of the Town Planning Officer under Section
52(3)(iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) which are to be communicated
forthwith to the party concerned and such party, if aggrieved thereby,
is entitled to file an appeal within one month from the date of such
communication before the Board of Appeal, constituted under Section
55. Section 67(a) refers to the effect of a preliminary scheme and
states that, on the day on which the preliminary scheme comes into
force, all lands required by the appropriate authority shall, unless
it is otherwise determined in such scheme, vest absolutely in the
appropriate authority, free from all encumbrances. Section 67(b)
states that upon the preliminary scheme coming into force, all rights
in the original plots, which have been reconstituted into final plots,
shall determine and the final plots shall become subject to the rights
settled by the Town Planning Officer. Section 68 empowers the
appropriate authority to summarily evict any person continuing to
occupy land which he is not entitled to occupy under the preliminary
scheme, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, after such
preliminary scheme comes into force. Section 70 empowers the
appropriate authority to apply in writing to the State Government
for variation of the preliminary or final scheme after it has come into
force, if the said authority considers that the scheme is defective
on account of an error, irregularity or informality.