1985 (12) TMI 359 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutional validity of the Town Planning Scheme No. VIII (Umarwada).
2. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Adequacy and method of compensation under Article 31(2) of the Constitution.
4. Absence of appeal provisions against certain decisions of the Town Planning Officer.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Town Planning Scheme No. VIII (Umarwada):

The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the Town Planning Scheme No. VIII (Umarwada) u/s 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging it violated Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, referring to the decision in State of Gujarat v. Shri Shantilal Mangaldas, which upheld the validity of the Act. The Supreme Court also upheld the Act, stating that the object of the Act is the orderly development of urban areas, which includes the preparation of development plans and town planning schemes.

2. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution:

The appellant argued that acquiring land under the Town Planning Scheme instead of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court referred to The Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. G.J. Desai and Ors., which held that there are two separate provisions for acquisition by the State Government and the local authority, and there is no option to resort to one or the other methods. The provisions of ss. 53 and 67 are not invalid on the ground of denying equal protection of the laws.

3. Adequacy and Method of Compensation under Article 31(2) of the Constitution:

The appellant contended that the Act did not provide for adequate compensation and procedural safeguards as under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Supreme Court, referring to State of Gujarat v. Shri Shantilal Mangaldas, held that the Act specifies principles for determining compensation, which is not open to challenge on the ground of adequacy. The principles for determining compensation are applicable to all cases under the Town Planning Act, and the compensation is determined on the basis of market value at the date of the declaration of intention to make a scheme.

4. Absence of Appeal Provisions against Certain Decisions of the Town Planning Officer:

The appellant argued that the absence of appeal provisions against certain decisions of the Town Planning Officer was discriminatory. The Supreme Court held that the absence of an appeal does not make a provision unreasonable or unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the Legislature is the best judge in deciding which decisions should be appealable. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is available to a person aggrieved by such orders.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the constitutional validity of the Town Planning Scheme No. VIII (Umarwada) and the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. The Court found no violation of Articles 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution and held that the absence of appeal provisions against certain decisions of the Town Planning Officer did not render the Act unconstitutional.