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

The petitioners, who are stated to be members of a Hindu Undivided Family, owned certain extent of lands in two areas viz., Usmanpur Section and Wadej Section. In the former, they claim to have owned lands bearing survey numbers 41/1, 42/2, 42, 51/1, 51/2 and 43 referred to as plot Nos. 22 and 22-A, measuring 65, 164 sq. yds. In Wadej Section, again, they owned 14,520 sq. yds., in survey Nos. 106, 3/1, 106/4, referred to as plot No. 195. Both these sections are within the jurisdiction of the second respondent herein, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.3. The second respondent, by resolution No. 475, dated August 20, 1959, declared its intention to make a Town Planning Scheme No. 19 (Memnagar), under S. 22 (1) of the Act, in respect of certain areas of land, which included the above mentioned lands of the petitioners. The said declaration was published in the Bombay Government Gazette, dated September 3, 1959. A notification was issued on November 16, 1959, stating that the second respondent was preparing a Draft Town Planning Scheme, and stating that interested persons may appear before the Town Planning Committee, on December 2, 1959, at 4 p. m., for the purpose of having the proposals contained in the Scheme explained to the public and to elicit suggestions from the public with regard to those proposals.4. The petitioners appeared before the said Committee, on December 2, 1959, and raised certain objections, and also offered some suggestions for modifying the Scheme. Written objections were also submitted by the petitioners, on or about January 9, 1960, to the Town Planning Committee. The petitioners pointed out that in Usmanpur and Wadej Sections they owned lands to the extent, approximately, of 70,180 sq. yds., but in the proposals as contained in the Draft Scheme they were expected to get only 19,087 sq. yds., and, as such, they stood to lose nearly 72 per cent of their lands. They also pointed out that they had been made liable to pay a heavy contribution of Rs. 30, 137/-. The petitioners suggested that the loss to each land-owner, should be equitably distributed under the Scheme and that they should be allotted lands of equal extent.5. On June 13, 1960, a draft Town Planning Scheme was prepared under S. 23 (1) of the Act, and it was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette, dated June 23, 1960. The petitioners, again, submitted the same objections, which they had placed, for consideration, before the Town Planning Committee. After considering the objections and suggestions made by the petitioners, the second respondent forwarded the Draft Town Planning Scheme to the third respondent, the State of the Gujarat, under S. 28 (1) of the Act. The third respondent, again, sanctioned the said Draft Scheme, under S. 28 (1) of the Act and also appointed a Town Planning Officer, under S. 31 (1) of the Act. Subsequently, there was a charge in the personnel of the Town Planning Officer, originally appointed. Ultimately, the Town Planning Officer issued a public notice in October 1961, inviting objections and suggestions from owners of lands, in respect of the Draft Town Planning Scheme, which was being considered by him.6. The petitioners again, filed objections in November 1961, before the said Town Planning Officer, and here also they reiterated the same objections and suggestions which they had placed before the Town Planning Committee at the earlier stage, and before the second respondent, later.7. In the Draft Scheme prepared by the second respondent, and sanctioned by the State of Gujarat the petitioners lands, viz., survey Nos. 41/1, 41/2, 51/1, 51/2 (being plot No. 22) and survey No. 43 (being plot No. 22-A) were shown as item No. 18, and lands survey Nos. 106, 3/1 and 106/4 (plot No. 195 ) were shown as item No. 163. The Town Planning Officer issued notices in April and June, 1962, to the petitioners. In the first notice, it was mentioned that the petitioners were being allotted new plots, Nos. 32, 34 and 43, measuring 19,087 sq. yds. As against plots Nos. 22 and 22-A, measuring 56,164 sq. yds. It was also stated that the value of the original plots Nos. 22 and 22-A, was Rs. 37,556/- and of the new plots Nos. 32, 34 and 43, was Rs. 14,315/- and that, in consequence, the petitioners were entitled to a payment of compensation, under S. 67, in the sum of Rs. 23,241/-. The notice further stated that the value of plots Nos. 32, 34 and 43, after taking into account the improvements in the Scheme, was Rs. 1,35,590/-, and, after deducting the price of those plots without reference to the improvements, viz., Rs. 14,315/-, the increase, under S. 65 of the Act, was Rs. 1,21,275/-, The petitioners were therefore liable to pay a contribution under S. 66, at the rate of 50 percent on the increment, viz., Rs. 60,638/-, and, after giving credit to the petitioners, in the sum of Rs. 23,241/-, they were called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 37,397/-.8. The second notice also mentioned that, as against the petitioners plot No. 195, measuring, 14,.520 sq. yds., no other plot was being allotted to them and that the compensation payable to them in respect of the said plot without reference to the improvements in the Scheme, was Rs. 7,260/. By virtue of these two notices, the petitioners were being allotted fresh plots of an extent of 19.087 sq. yds., and they were called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 30,133/-, as their share of contribution, and they were also required to furnish their objections or suggestions within the time specified. The petitioners filed their written objections to the proposals contained in the said two notices, and they also appeared on the dates mentioned in the notices and reiterated the matters contained in their written objections.9. The first respondent herein, the Town Planning Officer, issued, on January 20, 1965, two communications, stated to be his award, under S. 32 (3) of the Act. In the first of these communications, the petitioners were informed that in lieu of their plot No. 22, measuring 37,873 sq. yds., they were allotted Final Plots Nos 52, .54 and 57, measuring 20,183 sq. yds., and the value, under S. 67. was fixed at Rs. 8,222/-. The petitioners also informed that the calculation of increment of the value of 20,183 sq. yds., allotted to them under S. 65, was Rs. 1,08 483/- and, at the rate of 50 per cent as per S. 66 of the Act, they were liable to pay a contribution of Rs. 54,241/-. After adjusting the value of the lands, of Rs. 8,424/-, the net contribution payable by the petitioners was stated to be Rs. 45,817/-.10. Similarly, in the second communication of the petitioners were informed of the allotment of final plot No. 94 measuring 15,375 sq. yds., as against plot Nos. 22-A and 195 measuring in the aggregate 32,307 sq. yds. The petitioners were further informed that for the loss of 16,932 sq. yds, they would be entitled to compensation under S. 67 in the sum of Rs. 4,622/-. The calculation of increment, with reference to improvement in respect of the final plots allotted as per S. 65, was stated to be Rs. 65,344/-. In consequence, the share of contribution, under S. 66, payable by the petitioners at the rate of 50 per cent, was fixed in the sum of Rs. 32,672/-. Adjusting the sum of Rs. 4,622/- being the compensation payable to the petitioners, their net liability, as contribution, was fixed in the sum of Rs. 28,050/-.11. The final position, under these two notices, was that the petitioners were getting land of an extent of 35,558 sq. yards., as against the original extent of land of 70,180 sq. yds. and they had to pay a sum of Rs. 73,867/as contribution.12. The petitioners preferred appeals to the Board of Appeal, under S. 34 of the Act. The Board of Appeal reduced the increased value of the final plots by giving a general reduction of 60 paise per square yard. As a result of the appeal, the petitioners had still to pay a contribution of a sum of Rs. 63,199/-, apart from losing 34,622 sq. yds. of land. The Town Planning Officer made consequential changes in his original award, incorporating the decision of the Board and forwarded the final Scheme to the State Government for its sanction. It is, at that stage, the petitioners have come to this Court, seeking the reliefs mentioned above.The main contentions raised by Mr. B. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners, are: (i) The State Legislature was not competent to pass the Act as the subject, dealt with under the Act, is not covered by any of the entries in List II, or List III, of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. (ii) Even assuming that the State Legislature could pass the Act in question, nevertheless, the provisions regarding the levy of contribution towards the cost of the Scheme and all other matters relating to the working of the scheme, are unauthorised and unreasonable and that the powers vested in the Town Planning Officer, and the other authorities, under the Act, are unguided, arbitrary and uncontrolled and, therefore, the provisions of the Act infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f) and (g), and 31 of the

Court's reasoning:
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.