1967 (3) TMI 115 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the State Legislature to enact the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, and its amendments.
2. Constitutionality of the provisions regarding the levy of contributions and other operational aspects of the Act.
3. Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) & (g), and 31 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the State Legislature to Enact the Act:
The petitioners contended that the State Legislature was not competent to enact the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, and its amendments, as the subject matter was not covered by any entries in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The State, however, justified the enactment based on Entries 6 and 18 of List II and Entry 20 of List III. The Court found that the legislation could be broadly categorized under "land" as per Entry 18 of List II, which includes rights in or over land, transfer and alienation of agricultural land, and other related aspects. The Court also considered the Act to fall under Entry 20 of List III, which pertains to "economic and social planning," noting that town planning aims to promote health, convenience, and proper development of urban areas. The Court concluded that the State Legislature was competent to enact the legislation.

2. Constitutionality of Levy of Contributions and Operational Aspects:
The petitioners argued that the provisions regarding the levy of contributions towards the cost of the Scheme were unauthorized, unreasonable, and vested arbitrary powers in the Town Planning Officer and other authorities, thus infringing their fundamental rights. The State countered that the Act provided a systematic approach for town planning, including the reconstitution of plots and the provision of public amenities. The Court examined the detailed procedures laid out in the Act and the rules, which included provisions for public objections, hearings, and appeals. The Court found that the Act imposed reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public and that the powers vested in the authorities were neither unguided nor arbitrary. The Court upheld the provisions of the Act as valid and constitutional.

3. Alleged Infringement of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners claimed that the Act infringed their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) & (g), and 31 of the Constitution. The State argued that due to the Proclamation of Emergency, the petitioners could not claim fundamental rights under Article 19. The Court, however, chose to consider the issue assuming the petitioners were entitled to invoke Article 19. The Court held that the Act imposed reasonable restrictions on the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property in the interest of the general public. The Court found that the procedural and substantive aspects of the Act ensured that the restrictions were not arbitrary or excessive. The Court also noted that the reconstituted plots, though smaller, had higher value due to the improvements and amenities provided under the Scheme, thereby compensating the petitioners adequately. The Court dismissed the claims of deprivation of property under Article 31 and upheld the validity of the contributions demanded from the petitioners as part of the cost of the Scheme.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, and its amendments. The Court found that the State Legislature was competent to enact the legislation, the provisions regarding the levy of contributions were reasonable and not arbitrary, and the Act did not infringe the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. The petitioners were directed to bear the costs of the respondents.