N. NANALAL KIKLAWALA AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
N. NANALAL KIKLA WALA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2005 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] 
B 
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976-Section 
7/--(Jujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules,1979-Town 
Planning Scheme-Writ Petition seeking implementation of the Scheme- C 
Application of Nagarpalika for variation of the Scheme, pending before State 
Government-Direction by Single Judge of High Court to implement the 
Scheme-In appeal Division Bench of High Court holding that Single Judge 
. could not have given direction when proposal for variation was pending-
Subsequently variation of the Scheme rejected by State Government-Rejection 
of variation challenged in Writ Petition-On appeal, held: In view of rejection D 
of the proposal for variation, statutory consequences to be worked out-
However, it would be subject to the decision in the Writ Petition. 
A town planning scheme was sanctioned effecting the 'prop«irties of the 
appellants, a trust and the tenants therein. Appellants filed Writ Petition 
seeking implementation and execution of the sanctioned scheme. Two other E 
petitions were filed by the tenant and the trust. Petition of the appellant was 
allowed by Single Judge of the High Court and the Nagarpalika was directed 
to implement the scheme in accordance with the provisions contained in 
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and Gujarat Town 
Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979. The other two petitions were F 
dismissed. The orders were challenged before Division Bench. Nagarpalika 
took the plea that in view of Section 71 of the Act, High Court could not have 
given the directions, as it had applied for variation of the scheme. Division 
Bench accepted the plea of Nagarp.alika. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that the State Government G 
had rejected the prayer for variation·ofthe scheme. 
Nagarpalika contended that refusal to vary the scheme was pending 
under ehsllenge before High Court. 
H 
A 
B 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
Functionaries of the Trust contended that.subsequent to the rejection, 
State Government had again approved the variation. They further contended 
that everything was not clean and transparent as was evident from various 
correspondences made by various authorities of the concerned department. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: J. In view of the rejection of the proposal of the Nagarpalika for 
variation, the statutory consequences which flow are to be worked out. This, 
however, would be subject to the decision, if any, in the writ petition. 111-B) 
C 
The Municipal Corporaiion for Greater Bombay and Anr .. v. f.he 
Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd and Ors., (1971) 3 SCC 381, referred to. 
2. It is correct that everything is not clean and transparent in the 
concerned department as is evident from the various correspondences made 
by various a~thorities of the concerned department. The views in the various 
D communications made by various officials are not consistent. This does not 
speak well of the concerned department. [5-D( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2972 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.99 of the Gujarat High Court in 
E LP.A. No. 316 of 1999 in S.C. Application No. 9468 of 1996. 
F 
D.A. Dave, Kalpesh Parikh and Mrs. Nandini Gore for the Appella,nts . 
. Mahendra Anand, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Maulik Nanavati, Abhijat'P. 
M7~ti, Rajiv .Mehta, B. Aggarwala and A. Henry for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in a Letters 
Patent Appeal which was filed by Dahod Nagarpalika (in short 'Nagarpalika'), 
G the respondent No. 2 in this appeal. In the Letters Patent Appeal challenge 
·was to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed 
by the present appellant for a direction to implement and execute a s.:heme 
sanctioned. under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban 
Development Act, 1976 (in short the 'Act'). 
H 
•.
-
N.NANALALKIKLAWALA v. STATEOFGUJARAT[PASAYAT,J.) 
3 
The learned Single Judge had directed to implement the Town Planning A 
Scheme in question in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the 
Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (in short the 
'Rules'). A time limit for carrying out t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.