2014 (5) TMI 1143 - SC - Indian Laws

Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 -Whether Section 40(3)(jj)(a) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 would be operative for the land other than the land covered by Section 20(2) of the Act 1976, though upheld the validity of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Act 1976? - whether after the lapse of the period for reservation as per Section 20(2) of the Act 1976, can the said land be again acquired by resorting to the provisions of Section 40 of the Act 1976? Section 40 of the Act 1976 contains the words regard being had and thus it suggests that while the condition specified therein are to be taken into consideration they are only a guide and not fetters upon the exercise of power. It is a settled legal proposition that hardship of an individual cannot be a ground to strike down a statutory provision for the reason that a result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. It is the duty of the court to give full effect to the statutory provisions under all circumstances. Merely because a person suffers from hardship cannot be a ground for not giving effective and grammatical meaning to every word of the provisions if the language used therein is unequivocal. The interpretation given by the High Court runs contrary to the intention under the scheme and may frustrate the scheme itself as in the pockets left out in the scheme the basic amenities may not be available. The result would be that a portion of the land would be left without infrastructural facility while the adjacent area belonging to neighbours would be provided infrastructural facility. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has recorded an erroneous finding that if a designation lapses under Section 20, the land cannot be again reserved in a town planning scheme, and further if the land cannot be acquired under Section 20 for want of capacity to pay any compensation under the Act 1894, it cannot be allowed to be acquired indirectly on lesser payment of compensation as provided under the Act 1976. Thus, the judgment of the High Court to that extent is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Issues involved:

1. Validity and interpretation of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.
2. Application of statutory provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979.
3. Constitutionality of Sections 40(3)(jj) under Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
4. Legality of the Municipal Corporations' actions in declaring intentions to frame town planning schemes and taking land without compensation.
5. Legislative competence under Entry 18 of List-II and Entry 20 of the Concurrent List of the Constitution.
6. Adequacy of compensation under Section 82 of the Act, 1976.
7. Impact of the lapse of reservation under Section 20(2) and re-acquisition under Section 40.
8. Legality of the resolution dated 16.5.2008 regarding land acquisition extent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Interpretation of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Act 1976:
The Supreme Court examined the validity and interpretation of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. The primary contention was whether the provisions under this section were ultra vires Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution. The Court upheld the validity of Section 40(3)(jj), emphasizing that the increase in the percentage of land reserved for public purposes from 10% to 15% was within legislative competence and did not amount to excessive legislation.

2. Application of Statutory Provisions of the Rules 1979:
The Court analyzed the application of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979, in conjunction with the Act. It was noted that the Rules provided a framework for the preparation and execution of town planning schemes, including the assessment of compensation for landowners affected by such schemes. The Court found that the statutory provisions were adequately followed and did not warrant interference.

3. Constitutionality under Articles 14, 19, and 300-A:
The respondents argued that the provisions of Section 40(3)(jj) were unconstitutional as they violated Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (protection of certain rights regarding freedom), and 300-A (right to property) of the Constitution. The Court rejected these claims, stating that the legislation prescribed reasonable restrictions and did not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the landowners.

4. Legality of Municipal Corporations' Actions:
The Court addressed the legality of the actions taken by the Municipal Corporations of Ahmedabad and Surat in declaring intentions to frame town planning schemes and taking land without compensation. The Court found that the actions were within the scope of the Act and did not constitute illegal expropriation. The provisions allowed for the reservation of land for public purposes without immediate compensation, provided that adequate compensation mechanisms were in place under the Act.

5. Legislative Competence:
The Court examined whether the State Legislature was competent to enact provisions under Entry 18 of List-II (land, rights in or over land) and Entry 20 of the Concurrent List (economic and social planning) of the Constitution. The Court held that the State Legislature was well within its rights to specify the percentage of land to be used for public purposes, and the increase in the percentage did not amount to excessive legislation.

6. Adequacy of Compensation:
The respondents contended that the compensation provided under Section 82 of the Act was inadequate. The Court rejected this claim, stating that the compensation mechanism provided under the Act was in line with the principles of fair compensation and did not violate constitutional provisions.

7. Impact of Lapse of Reservation and Re-acquisition:
A significant issue was whether land that had lapsed under Section 20(2) could be reacquired under Section 40. The Court clarified that the lapse of designation under Section 20 did not preclude the inclusion of the land in a town planning scheme under Section 40. The Court emphasized that the town planning scheme involved pooling and reconstitution of plots, and the provisions for compensation were adequate to address any loss suffered by landowners.

8. Legality of Resolution Dated 16.5.2008:
The resolution dated 16.5.2008, which provided for taking over 50% of the land, was challenged on the grounds of being excessive compared to other schemes. The Court found that the challenge was premature as the resolution was only the initial step in the process, and landowners had ample opportunity to raise objections and seek personal hearings. The Court directed that landowners be given a fresh opportunity to present their objections.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 1542-44 of 2001, 1545-50 of 2001, and 1551-56 of 2001, setting aside the High Court's judgment to the extent it held that land under Section 20 could not be reserved in a town planning scheme. Civil Appeal No. 1864 of 2014 and Transferred Case (C) Nos. 12-13 of 2010 were dismissed. The Court clarified that the observations made in the transferred cases would not adversely affect either party and emphasized the need for a fair hearing process for landowners' objections.

← Previous Next →