Case: Maneklal Chhotalal &amp; Ors Vs. M. G. Makwana &amp; Ors

Bearing these principles in mind, the question is whether the grievance of the petitioners, in this regard, is well founded. No doubt, it is seen that the petitioners, as stated earlier, have been allotted, under the Scheme. a smaller extent of land and they have also been directed to pay certain amounts as their share of contribution. But, having due regard to the scheme of the Act and the object sought to be achieved, such results are inevitable. At every stage, from the beginning to the end, we have already indicated, the Act and the Rules, make very elaborate provisions regarding the formalities to be gone through, by the local authority, by the State Government and by the usher authorities concerned, in the matter of preparing and finalising a Town Planning Scheme. At all stages, a very wide publicity is given by the authorities concerned, in the matter of making known its proposals to the public and to the owners of land who are sought to be affected by the Scheme. Provisions have been made for filing of objections and suggestions and the authorities being bound to take into account those objections and suggestions. The procedure to be adopted by the Town Planning Officer, in the matter of giving his decisions, on the various aspects referred to in S. 32 have been not only indicated, in that section, but also provided for, under the Rules.49. It is also seen from the affidavit of the petitioners themselves, that at all relevant stages, they have filed objections or suggestions before the appropriate authorities. Nor are we impressed with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that there has been unfettered and arbitrary power vested in the Town Planning Officer in the matter of deciding the various points covered by S. 32 of the Act. We have already indicated that the procedure to be adopted by the Town Planning Officer has been dealt with elaborately, by the relevant rules.As to how exactly be has to decide the particular matters referred to in Cls. (iii), (viii). (ix), (xii) and (xii) of S. 32 (1) of the Act have been indicated in the reference made by those sub-clauses to Ss. 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68, respectively. Those sections have also been referred to by us earlier, and they give very clear indication as to what matters are to be adverted to by him, when a matter has to be decided in accordance with those sections.50. It is also seen from Cl. (e) of S. 26 (2) of the Act, that the primary intention in a draft Town Planning Scheme is to allot a plot to any owner dispossessed of land. With reference to very few people, to whom it may not be possible to allot any land, S. 71 comes into operation. Therefore, it will be seen that it is not as if the Town Planning Officer is left with any unguided discretion and arbitrary owner in dealing with matter under S. 32 (1).51. No doubt, every decision given by the Town Planning Officer, under S. 32, is not appealable, but some of the important decisions that are to be given by him, for instance, under Cls. (v), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xiii), are appealable under S. 34 to a Board of Appeal, which is presided over by a Judicial Officer of the standing of a District Judge. The procedure to be adopted by that Board is also clearly indicated in the rules. It is, after all these matters are gone through, that ultimately, the State Government sanctions the final Scheme.52. Therefore, having due regard to the substantive and procedural aspects, we are satisfied that the Act imposes only reasonable restrictions, in which case, it is saved under Art. 19(5) of the Constitution. The considerations referred to above will also show that the grievance of the petitioners that Art. 14 is violated, is also not acceptable.53. The petitioners, no doubt, urge that a very exorbitant price is being fixed by the Town Planning Officer regarding the value of the reconstituted plots allotted to them. Those are matters of detail, and they are covered by the provisions of the Act referred to above.54. The petitioners, no doubt, make a grievance of their having lost a fairly large extent of land, which, according to them, amounts to deprivation. We are not satisfied that the petitioners grievance is well founded in this regard. Though the petitioners may have originally owned larger extents of land, in different areas, which may or may not be fit for building purposes, there can be no controversy, that the reconstituted plots, though of a lesser area, have a higher value, as building sites, in view of the various improvements and amenities provided under the Town Planning scheme. What parties, like the petitioners, may have lost in actual area of land, can certainly be considered to have been more than sufficiently compensated by the increased value of the reconstituted plots. There is no question of any deprivation of property, therefore, so as to attract Art. 31.55. The petitioners make a grievance that they have to pay fairly large amounts by way of contribution to the Scheme. No doubt, the petitioners stand appears to be that the amount collected or demanded is really a tax, or fee, at any rate, which also the local authority has no right to ask for. Here again, the matter will have to be approached in an entirely different way. The amount that the petitioners have been asked to contribute is only towards the cost of the Scheme, which has to be incurred by the local authority. As to how exactly that contribution is to be worked out and the proportion in which the plots are to bear that burden, have all been indicated in the Act. Therefore, the liability of the petitioners to pay contribution has to be upheld, once we come to the conclusion that the Act. as a whole, will have to be sustained.56.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We have already very elaborately referred to the various provisions contained in the Act and we have also pointed out that the original Act of 1915 was passed with a view to regulate the development of certain areas with the general object of framing proper schemes for the healthy, orderly, development of the area in question and it is with a view to achieve this purpose that a very elaborate procedure and machinery has been prescribed in the Act. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the State Legislature was not competent to enact the statute, in question, cannot be accepted.No doubt, every decision given by the Town Planning Officer, under S. 32, is not appealable, but some of the important decisions that are to be given by him, for instance, under Cls. (v), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xiii), are appealable under S. 34 to a Board of Appeal, which is presided over by a Judicial Officer of the standing of a District Judge. The procedure to be adopted by that Board is also clearly indicated in the rules. It is, after all these matters are gone through, that ultimately, the State Government sanctions the final Scheme.Therefore, having due regard to the substantive and procedural aspects, we are satisfied that the Act imposes only reasonable restrictions, in which case, it is saved under Art. 19(5) of the Constitution. The considerations referred to above will also show that the grievance of the petitioners that Art. 14 is violated, is also not acceptable.The petitioners, no doubt, urge that a very exorbitant price is being fixed by the Town Planning Officer regarding the value of the reconstituted plots allotted to them. Those are matters of detail, and they are covered by the provisions of the Act referred to above.The petitioners, no doubt, make a grievance of their having lost a fairly large extent of land, which, according to them, amounts to deprivation. We are not satisfied that the petitioners grievance is well founded in this regard. Though the petitioners may have originally owned larger extents of land, in different areas, which may or may not be fit for building purposes, there can be no controversy, that the reconstituted plots, though of a lesser area, have a higher value, as building sites, in view of the various improvements and amenities provided under the Town Planning scheme. What parties, like the petitioners, may have lost in actual area of land, can certainly be considered to have been more than sufficiently compensated by the increased value of the reconstituted plots. There is no question of any deprivation of property, therefore, so as to attract Art. 31.The petitioners make a grievance that they have to pay fairly large amounts by way of contribution to the Scheme. No doubt, the petitioners stand appears to be that the amount collected or demanded is really a tax, or fee, at any rate, which also the local authority has no right to ask for. Here again, the matter will have to be approached in an entirely different way. The amount that the petitioners have been asked to contribute is only towards the cost of the Scheme, which has to be incurred by the local authority. As to how exactly that contribution is to be worked out and the proportion in which the plots are to bear that burden, have all been indicated in the Act. Therefore, the liability of the petitioners to pay contribution has to be upheld, once we come to the conclusion that the Act. as a whole, will have to be sustained.