2008 (5) TMI 725 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and application of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979.
2. Validity and legality of the notices issued under Sections 67 and 68 of the Act.
3. Rights of the tenant under the Act and Rules, including the necessity of special notice.
4. Waiver of rights by the tenant due to non-participation in the proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation and Application of the Act and Rules:
The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, and the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979. The Government of Gujarat, under Section 65 of the Act, made a scheme for the town of Umra, Surat, which included a road widening project. The appellant, a tenant on plot No. 17/8, objected to the acquisition but did not pursue his objection. The scheme was notified in 1999, and notices were issued under Sections 67 and 68 of the Act for possession and eviction.

2. Validity and Legality of Notices:
The appellant challenged the notices issued under Sections 67 and 68, claiming that the final allotment of plots was made without issuing the required notices under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the interests of the landlord and tenant were common, and the tenant's remedy was to claim compensation. The Division Bench upheld this decision.

3. Rights of the Tenant and Necessity of Special Notice:
The appellant argued that Sections 52 and 81 of the Act required notice to be served on interested persons, including tenants. The appellant cited previous Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that tenants have distinct rights and must be served notice. The respondents countered that public notices were issued as per Rule 26, and the scheme's validity could not be questioned at this stage. The Supreme Court noted that Rule 26 does not mandate special notice to tenants, unlike the earlier Bombay Rules.

4. Waiver of Rights by the Tenant:
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant did not pursue his objections to the draft scheme and did not participate in the re-allotment proceedings. The Court held that by not taking part in the proceedings, the appellant waived his right to object. The principle of waiver applies when a party, knowing their rights, chooses not to enforce them. The Court cited various legal precedents to support this view, emphasizing that the appellant's inaction allowed the scheme to attain finality.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had waived his right to object by not participating in the proceedings. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant may pursue other legal remedies, such as filing a suit or making a representation before the State. The appeal was dismissed without costs.