9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Compliance with mandatory safeguards under Rules 21(3) and 21(4) during reconstitution of plots. 2. Applicability of eviction scheme under Section 54 and Rule 27 in cases involving building demolition. 3. Validity of eviction notices without a show cause notice as per principles of natural justice. 4. Reasonableness of the time allowed in eviction notices. Detailed Analysis Compliance with Mandatory Safeguards under Rules 21(3) and 21(4) The petitioners argued that the mandatory safeguards of individual notice under Rules 21(3) and 21(4) were not complied with during the reconstitution of their plots, rendering the scheme ultra vires the Act. This issue was conclusively addressed by the Full Bench decision in Special Civil Application No. 1663 of 1970 (AIR 1977 Guj 23), where it was held that Rules 21(3) and 21(4) were merely additional procedural safeguards and not essential minimum requirements. The violation of these additional safeguards did not render the scheme null and void. The Full Bench emphasized that Section 51(3) gave the final scheme the status of a legislative measure, making it immune from challenges based on procedural defects. Consequently, the first ground raised by the petitioners did not survive. Applicability of Eviction Scheme under Section 54 and Rule 27 The petitioners contended that the eviction scheme under Section 54 and Rule 27 could not be invoked in cases where a building is to be demolished. The court clarified that Sections 54 and 55 deal with different situations. Section 54 pertains to eviction from land that individuals are not entitled to occupy under the final scheme, while Section 55 addresses the removal or alteration of buildings that contravene the scheme. The court noted that the term "land" in Section 54 includes buildings and works, and the eviction power under this section is administrative. The court held that the eviction power under Section 54 could be exercised even if it involved pulling down buildings, as long as the right to occupy had ceased under the final scheme. Thus, the second contention was rejected. Validity of Eviction Notices without Show Cause Notice The petitioners argued that the eviction notices were ultra vires without a show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. The court referred to the decision in Mangaljibhai Roopajibhai v. State (1972) 13 GLR 649, which upheld the vires of Section 54 and emphasized that the power of summary eviction must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The court held that Rule 27 did not exclude the principles of natural justice and provided two alternative procedures: either a show cause notice before issuing an eviction notice or a demand notice of eviction that allows the occupant to show cause within a reasonable time. Both procedures were deemed to satisfy the minimum requirements of natural justice. The court found no substantial grounds raised by the petitioners to invalidate the eviction notices, thus rejecting the third contention. Reasonableness of Time Allowed in Eviction Notices The petitioners claimed that the time allowed in the eviction notices was unreasonably short. The court acknowledged that a reasonable period should be provided for eviction from immovable properties, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the court noted that the petitioners had ample knowledge of the final schemes and their right to occupy had ceased. The petitioners had remained in occupation due to interim relief granted by the court. Therefore, the court held that no prejudice resulted from the time allowed in the eviction notices and rejected the fourth contention. Conclusion All the petitions were dismissed with costs. The interim relief granted in each case was vacated, and the rule was discharged. The court found no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners, affirming the validity of the eviction notices and the procedures followed under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954.
|
