MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERS versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 594, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
* 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 cross-
objection 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 re-
laying 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. Section 71 is titled 
‘Variation of Town Planning Scheme by another scheme’. It begins 
with a non-obstante clause and reads as under: -
‘71. Variation of town planning scheme by another 
scheme. -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 this Act.’
22.	 Section 81 is titled ‘Transfer of right from original to final plot or 
extinction of such right’ and states that any right in an original plot 
which, in the opinion of the Town Planning Officer, is capable of 
being transferred wholly or in part, without prejudice to the making 
of a Town Planning Scheme, to a final plot shall be so transferred 
and any right in an original plot which, in the opinion of the Town 
Planning Officer, is not capable of being so transferred, shall be 
extinguished. Section 82 is titled ‘Compensation in respect of property 
or right injuriously affected by the scheme’ and states that the owner 
of any property or right which is injuriously affected by the making
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
611
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.  
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
of a Town Planning Scheme shall, if he makes a claim before the 
Town Planning Officer within the prescribed time, be entitled to be 
compensated in respect thereof by the appropriate authority or by 
any person benefited or partly by the appropriate authority and partly 
by such person, as the Town Planning Officer may in each case 
determine. The proviso thereunder states that the value of such 
property or right shall be deemed to be its market value on the date 
of declaration of the intention to make a scheme or the date of the 
notification issued by the State Government under Section 43(1) 
without reference to improvements contemplated in the scheme, as 
the case may be. Section 84 deals with cases in which the amount 
payable to the owner exceeds the amount due from him and states 
that, if the owner of an original plot is not provided with a plot in the 
preliminary scheme or if the contribution to be levied on him under 
Section 79 is less than the total amount to be deducted therefrom 
under any of the provisions of the Act of 1976, the net amount of his 
loss shall be payable to him by the appropriate authority in case or in 
such other manner as may be agreed upon by the parties. Section 105 
is titled ‘Bar of legal proceedings’ and states that no suit, prosecution 
or other legal proceeding shall lie against the State Government, the 
appropriate authority or any
public servant or person duly appointed 
or authorized under the Act of 1976 in respect of anything in good 
faith done or purported to be done under the provisions thereof or 
any rules or regulations made thereunder. 
23.	 Section 118 of the Act of 1976 empowers the State Government to 
make rules consistent with the provisions of that statute to carry out 
the purposes thereof. In exercise of such power, the Gujarat Town 
Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979, were framed. Rule 16 
thereof prescribes the procedure to be followed for publication of the 
declaration under Section 41 of the Act of 1976. Rule 17 states that, 
for the purpose of making the draft scheme under Section 42 of the 
Act of 1976, the appropriate authority shall call a meeting or meetings 
of the owners of the lands included in the Town Planning Scheme, 
by a public notice as well as by individual notice to every owner 
whose address is known to the appropriate authority, and explain in 
such meeting the tentative proposals of the draft scheme for eliciting 
public opinion and suggestions on the said proposals. Thereafter, the 
appropriate authority is empowered to take into consideration all such 
suggestions and objections raised on the proposals for making the
612
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
draft scheme under Section 42. Rule 26 details the procedure to be 
followed by the Town Planning Officer under Sections 51 and 52(1) 
of the Act of 1976. Rule 26(1) requires the Town Planning Officer to 
give notice in Form H of the date on which he would commence his 
duties for preparing the preliminary scheme and final scheme and 
he shall also state the time within which the owner of any property or 
right which is injuriously affected by the making of the scheme, who 
would be entitled under Section 82, to make a claim for compensation 
before him. Under Rule 26(4), the Town Planning Officer is required 
to give every person, interested in any land affected by a scheme, 
sufficient opportunity of stating their views and not give a decision till 
he has duly considered their representations, if any. Rule 37 states 
that a claim under Section 82 shall be made within three months from 
the date fixed in the notice given under Rule 26(1).
24.	 Now, a quick recce of precedential thought on the Act of 1976 and 
the like. In State of Gujarat vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and others1, 
a Constitution Bench had occasion to consider the provisions of the 
Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955. The provisions of that enactment 
were earlier applicable in the State of Gujarat and are in pari materia 
with those of the Act of 1976. Section 53 of the Bombay Town Planning 
Act, 1955, provided that all lands required by the local authority 
shall,
on the day on which the final scheme comes into force, vest 
absolutely in the local authority free from all encumbrances, unless 
it is otherwise determined in such scheme, and that all rights in the 
original plots which have been reconstituted shall determine and the 
reconstituted plots shall become subject to the rights settled by the 
Town Planning Officer. In effect, this provision is identical to Section 
67 of the Act of 1976. The argument advanced in that case before 
the High Court, which had found favour with it in holding Section 53 
ultra vires, was that when a plot is reconstituted and out of that plot, 
a smaller area is given to the owner and the remaining area is utilized 
for a public purpose, the area so utilized vests in the local authority 
but as the Act did not provide for giving compensation, which is a 
just equivalent of the land expropriated on the date of extinction of 
interest, the guaranteed right under Article 31(2) of the Constitution 
stood infringed. Negating this contention, the Constitution Bench held 
that Section 53 did not provide that a reconstituted plot is transferred 
1	
[1969] 3 SCR 341 : (1969) 1 SCC 509
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
613
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.  
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
or is deemed to be transferred from the local authority to the owner 
of the original plot, as it provides for statutory readjustment of the 
rights of the owners of the original plots of land. The Bench pointed 
out that when the scheme comes into force, all rights in the original 
plots stand extinguished and, simultaneously therewith, ownership 
springs in the reconstituted plots. Noting that there is no vesting of 
original plots in the local authority nor transfer of the rights of the 
local authority in the reconstituted plots, the Bench observed that a 
part or even the whole plot belonging to an owner may go to form a 
reconstituted plot which may be allotted to another person or may be 
appropriated to public purposes under the scheme. The Bench further 
observed that the source of the power to appropriate the whole or 
a part of the original plot in forming a reconstituted plot is statutory 
and it does not predicate ownership of the plot in the local authority 
and no process - actual or notional - of transfer is contemplated in 
that appropriation. The Bench ultimately held that the concept that 
lands vest in the local authority when the intention to make a scheme 
is notified is against the plain intendment of the Act. Significantly, 
while considering the provision in the Bombay Town Planning Act, 
1955, pertaining to the method of adjustment of contribution
against 
compensation receivable by an owner of land, viz., Section 67, the 
Bench noted that the said provision states that the difference between 
the market value of the plot, with all the buildings and works thereon, 
on the date of declaration of the intention to make a scheme and the 
market value of the plot as reconstituted on the same day and without 
reference to the improvements contemplated in the scheme, is to 
be the compensation due to the owner and in the event the owner 
of the original land is not allotted a plot at all, he shall be paid the 
value of the original plot on the date of declaration of the intention 
to make a scheme. 
25.	 In Prakash Amichand Shah vs. State of Gujarat and others2, 
another Constitution Bench again dealt with the provisions of the 
Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955. It was observed therein that, on 
the final scheme coming into force, the lands affected by the said 
scheme which are needed by the local authority for the purposes of 
the scheme automatically vest in the local authority and there is no 
need to set in motion the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
2	
[1985] Supp. 3 SCR 1025 : (1986) 1 SCC 581
614
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Bench pointed out that the Town Planning Officer is authorized 
to determine whether any reconstituted plot can be given to a person 
whose land is affected by the scheme, as all rights of private owners 
in the original plots would determine and certain consequential rights 
in favour of the owners would arise therefrom. The Bench noted that, 
if reconstituted or final plots are allotted to them in the scheme, they 
become owners of such final plots, subject to the rights settled by 
the Town Planning Officer in the final scheme, and in some cases 
the original plot of an owner might be completely allotted by the 
local authority for a public purpose and such private owner may be 
paid compensation or given a reconstituted plot in some other place. 
Significantly, it was noted that such a reconstituted plot may be a 
smaller or a bigger plot and, in some cases, it may not be possible to 
allot a final plot at all. Reference was made to the provisions of the 
said Act, which provided for certain financial adjustments regarding 
payment of money to the local authority or to the owners of the 
original plots and it was noted that the development and planning 
carried out under the Act is primarily for the benefit of the public and 
the local authority is under an obligation to function according to the 
Act and bear a part of the expenses of the development. The Bench 
observed that, in one sense, it is a package deal.
26.	 In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another vs. Ahmedabad 
Green Belt Khedut Mandal and others3, a 3-Judge Bench of this 
Court considered the provisions of the Act of 1976. It was observed 
that the provisions of the Act of 1976, read conjointly, give a clear 
picture that the Town Planning Scheme is just like consolidation 
proceedings as the land belonging to various persons is first put into 
a pool and then allocated for different purposes and, in such a way, 
after having all deductions, the loss and profit of individual tenure-
holders is to be calculated. It was noted that a Town Planning Scheme 
would provide for pooling the entire land covered by the scheme 
and, thereafter, reshuffling and reconstituting of plots and the market 
value of the original plots and final plots is to be assessed and the 
authority has to determine as to whether a land owner has suffered 
some injury or has gained from such process. It was also pointed 
out that reconstitution of plots is permissible, as provided under 
the scheme of the Act and as is evident from a reading of Sections 
3	
[2014] 11 SCR 855 : (2014) 7 SCC 357
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
615
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.  
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
45(2)(a),(b),(c) and Section 52(1)(iii), in accordance with Section 81 
of the Act of 1976. The Bench observed that, if by reconstitution of 
the plots, anybody suffers injury, the statutory provisions provide for 
compensation under Section 67(b) read with Section 82 of the Act of 
1976. It was further noted that, by such reconstitution and readjustment 
of plots, there is no vesting of land in the local authority and the Act 
of 1976 provides for payment of non-monetary compensation and 
that mode was approved by the Constitution Bench in Shantilal 
Mangaldas (supra), wherein this Court held that when the scheme 
comes into force, all rights in the original plots are extinguished and, 
simultaneously therewith, ownership springs in the reconstituted plots. 
Reference was also made to Maneklal Chhotalal and others vs. 
M.G. Makwana and others4, wherein it was observed that, even if 
an original plot owner is allotted a smaller extent of land in the final 
plot and has to pay certain amount as contribution, having regard to 
the scheme and its objects, it is inevitable and would not amount to 
deprivation. The 3-Judge Bench, accordingly, observed that it is evident 
that in case a land owner is not provided with a final plot, the amount 
of his loss would be payable to him as required under Section 82 of 
the Act of 1976. Again referring to Shantilal Mangaldas (supra), it 
was
noted that there is no necessity to acquire the land as the title 
of the owners is readjusted upon the scheme being sanctioned and 
the lands required for any of the purposes of the scheme need not 
be acquired otherwise than under the Act, for it is a settled rule of 
interpretation of statutes that when power is given thereunder to do 
a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way 
or not at all.
27.	 This being the legal position vis-à-vis the Act of 1976, it was contended 
before us by the plaintiffs that the impugned judgment of the High 
Court is liable to be set aside on the short ground that no points for 
determination were framed therein, as required by Order 41 Rule 31 
CPC. Reliance was placed on Malluru Mallappa (Dead) through 
Lrs. vs. Kuruvathappa and others5, wherein this Court observed 
that the first appellate Court is required to set out the points for 
determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasoning. 
It was further observed that, even when the said Court affirms the 
4	
[1967] 3 SCR 65 : AIR 1967 SC 1373
5	
[2020] 2 SCR 789 : (2020) 4 SCC 313
616
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
judgment of the Trial Court, it has to comply with the requirements of 
Order 41 Rule 31 CPC as non-observance thereof would lead to an 
infirmity in its judgment. However, it may be noted that no absolute 
proposition was laid down therein to the effect that failure to frame 
points for determination, in itself, would render the first appellate 
Court’s judgment invalid on that ground. 
28.	 Reference was also made to Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari 
(Deceased) by LRs6, wherein this Court held that a first appeal is 
a valuable right and unless restricted by law, the whole case would 
be open for rehearing before it, both on questions of fact and law, 
and, therefore, the judgment of the first appellate Court must reflect 
conscious application of mind and it must record findings supported 
by reasons on all the issues arising, along with the contentions put 
forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the said Court. It 
was further observed that, while reversing a finding of fact, the first 
appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning 
of the Trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a 
different finding. This, per this Court, would satisfy the requirement 
of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.
29.	 However, in Laliteshwar Prasad Singh and others vs. S.P. 
Srivastava (Dead) thru. Lrs.7, this Court, while affirming the 
aforestated principles, observed that it is well settled that the
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. 
30.	 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. 
In this regard, useful reference may be made to G. Amalorpavam 
and others vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and others8, wherein this 
Court held as under: -
6	
[2001] 1 SCR 948 : (2001) 3 SCC 179
7	
[2016] 11 SCR 1 : (2017) 2 SCC 415
8	
[2006] 2 SCR 899 : (2006) 3 SCC 224
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
617
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.  
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
‘9. The question whether in a particular case there has 
been substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 
41 Rule 31 CPC has to be determined on the nature of the 
judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the 
provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly 
void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial 
compliance with it and the second appellate court is in a 
position to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate 
court. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should 
comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. 
But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that 
there is substantial compliance with the said requirements 
and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be 
sufficient. Where the appellate court has considered the 
entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail, 
come to any conclusion and its findings are supported by 
reasons even though the point has not been framed by 
the appellate court there is substantial compliance with the 
provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the judgment is 
not in any manner vitiated by the absence of a point of 
determination. Where there is an honest endeavour on the 
part of the lower appellate court to consider the controversy 
between the parties and there is proper appraisement of 
the respective cases and weighing and balancing of
the 
evidence, facts and the other considerations appearing on 
both sides is clearly manifest by the perusal of the judgment 
of the lower appellate court, it would be a valid judgment 
even though it does not contain the points for determination. 
The object of the rule in making it incumbent upon the 
appellate court to frame points for determination and to cite 
reasons for the decision is to focus attention of the court 
on the rival contentions which arise for determination and 
also to provide litigant parties opportunity in understanding 
the ground upon which the decision is founded with a view 
to enable them to know the basis of the decision and if so 
considered appropriate and so advised to avail the remedy 
of second appeal conferred by Section 100 CPC.’
31.	 As already noted hereinabove, the 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
618
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in the appeal. Further, we do not find that any particular issue that 
was considered by the Trial Court was left out by the High Court 
while adjudicating the appeal. In effect, we do not find 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.
32.	 As regards the merits of the matter, we may note that though the father 
of the plaintiffs was allotted Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring 3890 sq. 
yds./3252 sq. mts. in the original Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, 
in the year 1963, possession thereof could not be delivered to him as 
it was occupied by slum dwellers. It was only in the second variation 
of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 in August, 1986, that Final Plot No. 
187 was allotted to the plaintiffs in lieu of Plot No. 463 and it had a 
smaller area by 974 sq. mts. Reliance was placed by the plaintiffs 
upon the resolutions passed by the Town Planning Committee in its 
meeting held on 15.10.1986 and the Corporation in its general board 
meeting held on 30.10.1986 respectively to contend that it was the 
intention of the authorities concerned to allot the same area as in 
Final Plot No. 463 to them. However, we find from the resolutions in 
question that Final Plot No. 187 was specifically mentioned therein 
and the intention was that this plot should be allotted to the plaintiffs. 
It is an
admitted fact that this final plot was part of the original Town 
Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, and it was always of the same area, 
i.e., 2724 sq. yds/2278 sq. mts. Therefore, the mere use of the 
words ‘same area’ or ‘equal area’ in the resolutions had no impact 
as those words were used in juxtaposition to Final Plot No. 187 and 
the area of the said plot must have been within the knowledge of 
all concerned as on the dates of the resolutions, given the statutory 
scheme of transparency.
33.	 Further, though so much stress was laid by the plaintiffs upon the 
resolutions passed by the authorities in the year 1986 to contend that 
the ‘same area’ was to be allotted to them in lieu of Plot No. 463, 
we may note that this mistaken impression, if at all entertained by 
the plaintiffs, despite the clear mention of Final Plot No. 187 in those 
resolutions and their own knowledge of the details of the scheme, 
stood dispelled in April, 1995. They were parties to the public interest 
litigation initiated in Special Civil Application No. 3980 of 1992 before 
a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The 
challenge therein was to the allotment of Final Plot No. 187 to them
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
619
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.  
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
on the ground that the said plot was meant for a public purpose. The 
plaintiffs were respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in Special Civil Application No. 
3980 of 1992. In the judgment rendered therein on 03/04.04.1995, 
the Division Bench observed that Final Plot No. 187 was to be given 
to the plaintiffs instead of Final Plot No. 463 which was larger. The 
Division Bench further observed that it was they who appeared to 
have lost in the bargain, because the plot of land which was now 
being offered to them, viz., Plot No. 187, was nearly 1200 sq. yds. 
lesser than Plot No. 463 and the only advantage which they got was 
that Plot No. 187 was free from encumbrance. Nearly nine months 
later, Final Plot No. 187 was actually delivered to the plaintiffs. 
However, in the interregnum, they raised no objection or grievance 
as to the reduction in the plot size and quietly waited for delivery of 
Final Plot No. 187. It is also an admitted fact that, shortly thereafter, 
in the year 1998, the plaintiffs sold the said plot to J.K. Cooperative 
Housing Society Limited.
34.	 The failure of the Corporation in handing over vacant possession of 
Plot No. 463 was also subjected to attack, but we find that when the 
said allotment was modified by the second variation of Town Planning 
Scheme No. 6, Paldi, in the year 1986, whereby the plaintiffs were 
allotted Final Plot No. 187 which was of a lesser
area, they silently 
accepted the same and did not choose to either seek implementation 
of the original scheme, whereunder they were allotted a larger plot, 
or challenge the varied scheme, whereby they were given a smaller 
plot. Having accepted the plot allotted to them upon variation of the 
scheme without demur or protest, the plaintiffs cannot now seek to 
reopen the negligence and delay, if any, on the part of the Corporation 
prior to such variation. Further, as is evident from the edicts laid down 
by this Court, referred to supra, upon the preparation or variation 
of a Town Planning Scheme, the rights in the earlier plots of land 
would stand extinguished. That being so, such rights, if any, which 
have become extinct cannot be the basis for a later cause of action.
35.	 No doubt, even in 1986, when Final Plot No. 187 was allotted to the 
plaintiffs, it was not free of occupation as it had been given to Pulkit 
Trust for utilization as a playground. Even if this action on the part of 
the Corporation is held to be not in good faith, it would only entail a 
claim for compensation or damages, but as noted by the Trial Court 
as well as the High Court, the plaintiffs did not choose to adduce 
any evidence in support of their claim for the quantified damages of
620
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
₹1,63,97,673/-. No document was produced by the plaintiffs in proof 
of the price of land in Paldi area being ₹150/- per sq. yd. in the year 
1963. Though reference was made to the decision of this Court in 
Union of India and another vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and others9 in 
the context of a return of 10% p.a. being anticipated from investment 
in land and a multiplier of 13% being adopted for the purpose of 
capitalization, this method of calculation would have had meaning 
had the value of the land in the present case at the relevant point of 
time been determined. However, as the plaintiffs did not adduce any 
evidence whatsoever in proof of their claim as to the market value 
of the land in question at the relevant point of time, this judgment 
does not further their case, insofar as their claim for compensation/
damages is concerned. Reference to N. Nagendra Rao and Co. vs. 
State of A.P.10, in support of the plaintiffs’ claim for compensation 
owing to the negligence of the authorities is also of no avail as the 
principles contained therein would have had application if the plaintiffs’ 
claim for damages/compensation was duly supported by material 
evidence, which it is not.
36.	 Further, though it has been contended before us that the plaintiffs 
never actually received the compensation offered by the Corporation 
for the shortfall of 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per sq. yd., it is an admitted 
fact that, pursuant to the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the 
plaintiffs did deposit the sum of ₹24,350/-, being the compensation 
for 974 sq. mts. @ ₹25/- per sq. mt., as directed by the Trial Court. 
Had it been their case that they did not receive such compensation, 
they ought not to have abided by the direction of the Trial Court and 
deposited that amount. This voluntary act on their part precludes 
them from contending, at this stage, that the said compensation was 
never paid to them and that they had deposited the amount as it was 
only a paltry sum. 
37.	 The further argument of the plaintiffs that the Act of 1976 does not 
contemplate a second reduction in the reconstituted plot area does 
not merit acceptance. Section 45 of the Act of 1976 deals with 
reconstitution of plots and it is a settled legal position, per the decisions 
of this Court in Prakash Amichand Shah and Ahmedabad Green Belt 
9	
[1984] 1 SCR 217 : (1983) 4 SCC 542
10	
[1994] Supp. 3 SCR 144 : (1994) 6 SCC 205
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
621
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.  
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Khedut Mandal, referred to hereinabove, that 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 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 No. 6, Paldi, with 
a deduction of 21.40%. 
38.	 Though it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that variation 
of the Town Planning Scheme as permitted under Sections 70 and 
71 of the Act of 1976 must be read together, we find 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. Reference in this regard may be made to the Division Bench 
judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Bhupendra Kumar Ramanlal 
and others vs. State of Gujarat and others11, wherein It was held 
that Section 71 of the Act of 1976 provides for the procedure laid 
down in the Act of 1976 for making a Town Planning Scheme being 
11	
(1995) 1 GLH 1124 : (1996) AIHC 109
622
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
followed for the purpose of varying a sanctioned scheme. We are in 
complete and respectful agreement with the above view expressed 
by the High Court.
39.	 Viewed thus, we find 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. In this regard, we may 
also note that Section 52 deals, not only with the allotment of plots, 
but also the amount to be paid as compensation. Section 52(3)(x) 
states that the Town Planning Officer shall estimate, with reference 
to the claims made before him after notice has been given by him 
in the prescribed manner and form, the compensation to be paid to 
the owner of any property or right injuriously effected by the making 
of the Town Planning Scheme in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 82. Further, Section 54 provides an appellate remedy to 
the person aggrieved by any decision of the Town Planning Officer 
under Section 52(3)(x). In effect, 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 under Section 
52(3)(x), was a decision which was amenable to appellate review 
under Section 54. However, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs 
did not avail such remedy.
40.	 We may also note that the plaintiffs’ main prayer in their suit was for 
quantified compensation, which they had calculated on the strength 
of the area of Final Plot No. 463 which could not be allotted to them, 
i.e., 3890 sq. yds., but their prayer, in the alternative, was for allotment 
of an extent of land of 974 sq. yds., which was the shortfall in area 
when they were allotted Final Plot No. 187 in the second varied 
scheme. In effect, the value of 3890 sq. yds. in Final Plot No. 463 
in the original Town Planning Scheme was equated by them to an 
extent of 974 sq. yds. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western 
zone of Ahmedabad. Significantly, no evidence was led as to the 
values of the two final plots, viz., Final Plot No. 463, admeasuring 
3890 sq. yds., and Final Plot No. 187, admeasuring 2724 sq. yds.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
623
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.  
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
The monetary value of these two plots would depend upon their 
situation, development, proximity and access to the main road or 
highway, etc., and cannot be surmised or estimated without relevant 
material being produced. It cannot even be assessed as to whether 
they were of equal monetary value. Therefore, the prayer of the 
plaintiffs for allotment of an extent of land equivalent to the shortfall 
area of Final Plot No. 463 may not have been logical as their values 
may not necessarily be commensurate or comparable.
41.	 To sum up, having sought quantified damages of ₹1,63,97,673/-, 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.
42.	 On the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the 
High Court was fully justified in allowing the first appeal
filed by the 
Corporation and non-suiting the plaintiffs in entirety. The impugned 
judgment does not brook interference on any count.
The appeals are, therefore, bereft of merit and are accordingly 
dismissed.
In the circumstances, parties shall bear their respective costs.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey