1973 (2) TMI 136 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency, regularity, propriety, and legality of claims for betterment contribution made by the Municipality.
2. Date for fixing the market value of properties under Section 12 of the Act.
3. Power of the Government to grant time extensions for the Municipality to submit a draft town planning scheme.
4. Competence of the State Government to amend or vary a scheme after its sanction.
5. Attribution of increase in property market value to the town planning scheme.
6. Power of the appellate authority to remand the matter to the arbitrator.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency, Regularity, Propriety, and Legality of Claims for Betterment Contribution:
The subject matter of these writ petitions revolves around the claims for betterment contribution made by the Mayuram Municipality against property owners within the Pattamangalam Extension Town Planning Scheme. The scheme, sanctioned by the State Government under the Madras Town Planning Act, aimed at economic and social planning for the development of specific areas. The Act allows for the recovery of betterment contributions from property owners benefiting from the scheme, as outlined in Section 23. The Court upheld the legislative competency of the Act, noting that it aims to achieve coordinated development and is within the legislative power of the State under the Constitution.

2. Date for Fixing the Market Value of Properties Under Section 12 of the Act:
The primary contention was whether the market value of properties should be fixed as of 2nd May 1944, the date when the State Government first called upon the Municipality to prepare a draft scheme, or 13th June 1956, the last date of the Government's extension for the submission of the draft scheme. The Court held that the relevant date for fixing the market value is 13th June 1956, as the Government's power to extend time under Section 12 is an original power, not exhausted by previous extensions.

3. Power of the Government to Grant Time Extensions for the Municipality to Submit a Draft Town Planning Scheme:
The Court addressed the argument that the Government lacked the power to extend the time for the Municipality to submit the draft scheme. It was held that the Government's power under Section 12 to call upon the Municipality to submit a draft scheme is an original power that can be exercised from time to time. Each extension is a fresh exercise of this power, and the Government's authority to extend the time is supported by Section 13 of the General Clauses Act and previous judicial interpretations.

4. Competence of the State Government to Amend or Vary a Scheme After Its Sanction:
The petitioners questioned the Government's competence to amend the scheme, specifically the extension of the time limit for making claims for betterment contribution from two to four years. The Court reaffirmed that the State Government has unrestricted power under Section 15(2) of the Act to vary or revoke a sanctioned scheme, provided that affected persons are given an opportunity to object. This power includes extending the time for submitting claims for betterment contribution.

5. Attribution of Increase in Property Market Value to the Town Planning Scheme:
The petitioners argued that the increase in property market value could be due to various factors, not solely the town planning scheme. The Court cited previous judgments, emphasizing that the legislative intent behind Section 24 is that any increase in property value within the scheme area is attributable to the scheme. The Court upheld this statutory declaration, noting that the betterment contribution is based on the presumed increase in property value due to the scheme.

6. Power of the Appellate Authority to Remand the Matter to the Arbitrator:
The final issue was whether the appellate authority (District Judge) had the power to remand the matter to the arbitrator. The Court held that the District Judge, acting as a persona designata under Section 29 of the Act, does not possess inherent power to remand. Consequently, the order of remand by the District Judge was deemed an error apparent. The Court partially allowed the writ petitions, remitting the matter back to the District Judge to determine the market value of the properties as on the relevant date (13th June 1956) without remanding it to the arbitrator.

The Court concluded by directing the appellate authority to record the market value of the properties within the town planning scheme as of 13th June 1956, allowing the parties to present additional evidence on this aspect. No order as to costs was made in all the petitions.