MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERS versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 10-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 594 : 2024 INSC 401
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others 
v. 
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(Civil Appeal Nos. 16956-16957 of 2017)
10 May 2024
[A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Trial Court decreed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs by accepting 
the alternative prayer that they should be allotted an extent of 974 
sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of 
Ahmedabad, but rejected the main prayer for compensation with 
interest. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first 
appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation and non-suiting the 
plaintiffs; Impugned judgment if liable to be set aside as contended 
by the plaintiffs, on the ground that no points for determination 
were framed therein, as required by Order 41 Rule 31, Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 41, r.31 – Gujarat Town 
Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 – ss.52, 54, 70, 71, 
81, 82 – Plaintiffs’ father owner of various plots surrendered 
land pursuant to a Town Planning Scheme – The Corporation 
allotted two separate final plots out of which possession of one 
was delivered to the plaintiffs’ father however, the possession 
of the other plot i.e. Final Plot No.463 was not delivered – Town 
Planning Scheme was varied later but without any alternative 
plot being allotted in lieu of Final Plot No.463 – However, under 
the second varied scheme, plaintiffs were offered Final Plot 
No.187 which had a smaller area by 974 sq. mts., and as per 
them they were offered meagre compensation @ ₹25/- per 
sq. mt. for the deducted area of 974 sq. mts. – Suit filed by 
plaintiffs against Corporation seeking compensation with 
interest or, alternatively, for allotment of land, i.e., an extent 
of 974 sq. mts., in any Town Planning Scheme in the western 
zone of Ahmedabad – Suit decreed by Trial Court accepting the 
alternative prayer, main prayer for compensation was rejected 
– Appeal filed by the Corporation was allowed by High Court, 
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
595
Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and Others v.  
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs were rejected – Plea of the 
plaintiffs inter alia that the judgment of the High Court is liable 
to be set aside on the ground that no points for determination 
were framed therein, as required by Or. 41, r.31 CPC: 
Held: Mere omission to frame the points for determination would 
not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that 
the first appellate Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence 
adduced by both parties – Thus, even if the first appellate Court 
does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the 
first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with 
all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal – 
Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC in 
that regard is sufficient – High Court did set out all the issues framed 
by the Trial Court in the body of the judgment and was, therefore, 
fully conscious of all the points that it had to consider in the appeal – 
Further, no particular issue that was considered by the Trial Court 
was left out by the High Court while adjudicating the appeal – No 
merit in the contention that the impugned judgment is liable to be 
set aside on this preliminary ground, warranting reconsideration of 
the first appeal by the High Court afresh – Furthermore, on merits, 
plaintiffs, being well aware of the fact that Final Plot No. 187 allotted 
to them under the second varied Town Planning Scheme, was of 
lesser area, accepted the same without any protest and without 
agitating a right to a larger area in the light of the initial allotment 
of Plot No.463, and their conduct in depositing ₹24,350/- thereafter, 
implying receipt of the compensation amount for the shortfall area 
of 974 sq. mts. @ 25/- per sq. mt., foreclosed their right, if any, to 
either challenge the allotment of a plot of lesser area or to seek 
more compensation – Further, upon the preparation or variation 
of a Town Planning Scheme, the rights in the earlier plots of land 
would stand extinguished – Thus, such rights, if any, which became 
extinct cannot be the basis for a later cause of action – Also, the 
quantification of compensation @ 25/- per sq. mt. for the shortfall 
area of 974 sq. mts., which is relatable to the power of the Town 
Planning 

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