STATE OF GUJARAT versus SHRI SHANTILAL MANGALDAS & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 13-01-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 14 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
' 
E 
F 
G 
' 
H. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
SURI SHANTILAL MANGALDAS & ORS. 
January 13, 1969 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. C. SHAH, 
V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Bombay Town Planning Act (27 of 1955), ss. 53 and 61-Compensa-
tion at market value on a date many years before the date of extinction 
o/ ownerS' title-If violative of Art. 31(2) of Constitution after Fourth 
Amendment-Acquisition for town plcnning----lf protected by Art. 31(5) 
(b)(ii). 
By a resolution dated April 18, 1927, the Borough Municipality of 
Abmedabad declared its intention of making a town-planning 
scheme 
JJDder the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915. A plot of land measuring 
18,219 sq. yards belonging to the first respondent was covered by the 
scheme. 
In the draft scheme the plot was reconstituted into two plots-
one plot measuring 15,403 sq. yards reserved for the first respondent and 
the other, measuring 2,817 sq. yards reserved for the Municipality. The 
arbitrators were appointed to decide various matters made little progress. 
In 1955, the 1915-Act was repealed by the Bombay Town Planning Act. 
1955 which received the assent 
of President on August 1, 1955, 
and 
came into force on April 1, 1957. 
By s. 90(2) of the 1955 Act, the 
proceedings preparing a scheme commenced under the repealed Act was 
continued. 
Under the 1955 Act, on the coming into forc.e of the scheme 
all lands which are required by the local authority, unless otherwise deter-
mined in the scheme, by the operation of s. 53(a) vest absolutely therein 
free from all encumbrances. 
By cl. (b), ownership in a plot belonging 
to a person is substituted by the owne'rship in the reconstituted plot, his 
ownership in the original plot is extinguished and simultaneously therewith 
he becomes the owner of a reconstituted plot subject to the rights settled 
by the Town Planning Officer. The reconstituted plots, having regard to 
the .exigencies of the scheme need not be of the same dimensions as the 
original land and are generally smaller. Section 67 provides that the differ-
ence between the market value df the plot with all the buildings and works 
thereon at the date of the declaration of the intention to make a scheme 
and the market value of the plot as reconstituted on the same date and 
without reference to the improvements contemplated in the scheme is to 
be the compensation due to the owner. Section 71, which is a corollary 
to s. 67, provides, inter alio that if the owner of the origina1 land is not 
allotted a plot at all, he shall be paid the value of the original plot at the 
date of the declaration of intention to make a scheme. 
The Town Plan-
ning Officer informed the first respondent that Rs. 25,411 were awarderi 
to him as compensation. He filed a petition in the High Court, challeng-
ing the validity of the Act on the ground that it violated Art. 31 (2) of 
the Constitution. The High Court declared ss. 53 and 67 of the Act ultra 
vires and declared the town planning scheme invalid as a coronary. 
In appeal to this Court on the questions, (I) whether the Act was 
exempt from the operation of Art. 31(2), because its object was promo-
tion of public health and fell within the terms of Art. 31 (5)(b) (ii), and 
(2) whether the Act specifies the 'principles on which compensation is to 
be determined and the guarantee under Art. 31 (2) is on that account not 
infringed, 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(!969] 3 S.C.R. 
. HELD: (I) Section 53(a) of the Act is a law for compulsory acquisi- A 
tlon of land;. 1t cannot. be said .th~t because the object of the Act is to 
promore J?Ubhc health 1t falls w1th1D the exception of Art. 31(5)(b)(iiJ. 
The prmc1pal objects of town planning legislation no doubt are to provide 
for planned and controlled development and use of land in urban areas 
~ith special 're&:a.r~ to requirements of better living conditions and sanita-
tion; but acqu1s1t1on of property for such purposes could not be made 
under laws coming within the purview of Art. 3!(5)(b)(ii) without pay-
ment of compensation. 
[354 F, G] 
B 
Dy. Com111issioner and Collector, Kamrup 
v. 
Durga Nath Sarma, 
[1968] I S.C.R. 561, followed. 
(2) The legislature specified in the 1955 Act, principles 
for deter-
mination of compensation. 
The principles· for determination of compen- · 
sation cannot be said to be irrelevant, nor can the compensation deter-
mined, be said to be illusory. 
Being a principle relating to compensation, C 
a challenge t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.