Explore the legal battle surrounding Town Planning Scheme No. 103 in Gujarat. The dispute over land deductions has brought forward key arguments from stakeholders. Stay informed about the latest judgment by the Gujarat High Court in this case.
Facts
- The appeal is against the judgment dismissing the writ petition challenging the creation of Town Planning road in T.P. Scheme No 103.
- State Government sanctioned T. P. Scheme No.103 on 11.12.2003.
- Notice was issued to the writ-applicants and stakeholders on 16.8.2013 under Section 68 read with Rule 33 of the Act.
- Challenge to the Notice dated 16.08.2013 ended with the Order dated 03.01.2014.
- Draft T.P. Scheme No 103 (Nikol) finalized by the State Government on 11.12.2003.
- Some lands of original Block No 74 were to be included in the Town Planning road as per the Scheme.
- Objections were filed by the petitioners, and after hearing and considering their representations, deductions were explained.
- Competent Authority concluded that changes proposed by petitioners were not acceptable at that stage.
- Most possessors of properties under deductions had vacated and road widening was in progress.
- Widening of road deemed necessary in public interest to resolve traffic congestion.
- Intention to make T.P. Scheme No. 103 (Nikol) declared on 5.12.2001 by AUDA.
- Owners meeting held on 18.4.2002 as per Section 42 with no objections filed.
- No objections submitted by stakeholders during the making and framing of T.P. Scheme.
Arguments
- Petitioners claim discrimination due to exorbitant deductions of land from Survey No 276/2 including Plot Nos. 5, 6, and 7.
- Petitioners argue that the proposed road alignment change in Town Planning Scheme No 103 was deliberate to deprive them of valuable property.
- Existing illegal constructions on Plot No. 276/1 remain untouched, showcasing prejudice against the petitioners.
- Petitioners assert discrimination as road construction took a major portion of their plot, deeming it a mala fide action.
- Counsel for Respondent No. 2 cites court judgments emphasizing town planning schemes for better facilities, not property acquisition.
- Initial proposal for road construction involved Survey No 276/1, but no deductions were made, affecting the petitioners.
- Petitioners reiterate discriminatory treatment compared to Survey No 276/1 owners due to excessive deductions from their land.
- No dispute on the findings of the learned Single Judge by the petitioners’ counsel.
- Post Town Planning Scheme sanction in 2003, any subsequent development holds no relevance.
- While private losses may occur during Town Planning Scheme implementation, public welfare remains paramount.
Analysis
- The Statute provides detailed formalities for local authorities, State Government, and other authorities in preparing Town planning schemes.
- The owner who had a right to object to the draft scheme in 2003 waived the right to object to land utilization for road widening.
- The appellant’s decision not to oppose the draft scheme in 2003 implies acceptance of the State’s right to execute it.
- No factual inquiry can be conducted regarding changes in road alignment post finalization of the draft scheme in 2003.
- Town Planning Scheme preparation and road carving is a policy decision within the authority’s discretion.
- The Court cannot override the competent authority’s judgment on the draft scheme and objections.
- The petitioners’ objections were considered and rejected through the statutory process, barring further judicial review as no error in decision-making was demonstrated.
- Interference is not called for in the decision of the learned Single Judge.
- Petitioners’ plea of discrimination or colorable exercise of power is unsupported by cogent material.
- No successful demonstration of mala fide before the court.
- Petitioners waived their objection after a period of ten years, making it impermissible to raise any objection later.
- Variation in Town Planning Scheme finalized in 2013 with notification of preliminary scheme cannot be made.
Decision
- The appeal was found devoid of merits and dismissed.
- The connected Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: SHARDABEN MANGALBHAI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/LPA/517/2024
