BABULAL BADRIPRASAD VARMA versus SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 02-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 564 
A 
BABULAL BADRIPRASAD VARMA 
II. 
SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3203 of 2008) 
B 
MAY 02, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Town Planning : 
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 
c 1979: 
r. 26 - Land acquired for a road widening project -
Rea/location of plots as per Scheme - Two plots of landlord 
acquired one being under tenancy - Notice given to landlord 
D as also to tenant - Tenant not pursuing the matter - After final 
allotment of plots tenant claiming that he was not served with 
notice of final allotments of plots - Held : Rule 26 does not 
I 
contemplate individual notice - Tenant did not oppose the 
~ 
draft Scheme - Even if the tenant had a claim, he would be 
E deemed to have waived the same - He has lost his right to 
enforce the same against the State in a public forum - He 
may pursue his claim only against the landlord wherein, for 
certain purposes, State or the authorities may be impleaded 
as party - Waiver - Estoppel - Gujarat Town Planning and 
F 
Urban Development Act, 1976- Ss. 52, 67,68, 81 and 82. 
Town Planning 
1 
Planning authority - 'Vesting' of land in it on acquisition 
• 
for public purpose and enabling it to create third party interest 
vis-a-vis for purpose of re-allotment of plots - Distinction 
G between - Explained. 
Respondent No.4 was the owner of Plot Nos. 17/7 
and 17/8, the latter being under tenancy of the appellant. 
• 
In order to acquire the said plots under a road widening 
,,._ 
H 
564 
BABULAL BADRIPRASAD VARMA v. SURAT MUNICIPAL 
565 
CORPORATION & ORS. 
project of the Town Planning Scheme, notices were A 
issued to the appellant and respondent noA. The 
appellant though objected thereto, but did not pursue his 
case further and, despite public notice, did not file any 
objection to re-allotment of plots. Ultimately, respondent 
no.4 was allotted final plot no.157 and some portion of B 
plot no. 17/8 was merged in final plot no. 165 owned by 
respondent no.3. In the process of implementing the 
Scheme, respondent No.1 first served notices u/s. 67 of 
the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 
1976; and thereafter another notice u/s 68 of the Act on c 
respondent No.4 but he did not respond. Validity of the 
second notice was challenged by the appellant in a writ 
petition before the High Court contending, inter alia, that 
the purpoted final allotments of plot nos. 165 and 157 in 
favour of respondent nos. 3 and 4, respectively, were made 
D 
without issuing any notice as envisaged u/ss 52 and 53 
' . .,. 
of the Act. The writ petition as also the intra-court appeal 
having been dismissed, the tenant filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A Town Planning Scheme, envisages E 
calling for objection from the persons concerned for three 
purposes : (i) in regard to draft scheme; (ii) lodging of any 
claim for payment of compensation; and (iii) participation 
in the matter of allotment of final plots. A person interested 
~ 
in continuing to keep possession over a property and/or F 
} 
to claim a part of the amount of compensation must lay 
his claim before the appropriate authority at the 
appropriate stage. [para 15 and 22] [578-C, D; 580-A, B] 
1.2 The appellant did not oppose the draft scheme 
and accepted that the State had a right to do so. Existence G 
of a public purpose and increase in the valuation of the 
~ 
property was admitted. There exists a distinction in the 
"" 
action of the planning authority as regards vesting of a 
property in it and one so as to enable it to create a third 
party interest vis-a-vis for the purpose of re-allotment H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
A thereof. In the former case, the vesting of the land may be 
held to be an act of acquisition, whereas in the latter, it 
would be distribution of certain benefits having regard to 
the purpose sought to be achieved by a statute involving 
town planning. While the proceedings relating to allotment 
B of final plot were in progress, the appellant even did not 
file any objection thereto. If he intended to claim any 
interest in a portion of plot No. 17/8 either for the purpose 
of obtaining compensation or to continue to have its 
possession, it was obligatory on him to participate in the 
C proceedings. If in absence of any such claim filed by the 
appellant, the authorities have proceeded to finalise 
allotment of final plots in favour of the respondent Nos.3 
a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.