TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 40(3)(jj)(a) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 was ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India or amounted to excessive legislation, and whether land that had lapsed from a development plan under Section 20(2) could nevertheless be included in a town planning scheme under Section 40; (ii) whether the challenge in the transferred cases, directed against the draft-stage resolution and scheme, was premature.
Issue (i): Whether Section 40(3)(jj)(a) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 was ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India or amounted to excessive legislation, and whether land that had lapsed from a development plan under Section 20(2) could nevertheless be included in a town planning scheme under Section 40.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats development plans and town planning schemes as distinct stages of urban development. The town planning scheme operates on a pooled and reconstituted basis, with redistribution of plots, allocation for public purposes, and provision for infrastructure funding. Section 40(3)(jj)(a) merely specifies percentages for different purposes within the scheme and regulates the authority's discretion; it does not create an impermissible acquisition without authority of law. The Court held that lapse of designation under Section 20(2) does not exclude the land from a subsequent town planning scheme, because Section 40 is concerned with a different statutory mechanism and must be read with the Act as a whole. The compensation framework under the Act and Rules was also upheld, and the challenge based on inadequacy of compensation or alleged violation of property rights was rejected in light of settled constitutional principles and prior precedent.
Conclusion: The provision was held valid, and land whose designation had lapsed under Section 20(2) could still be included in a town planning scheme under Section 40.
Issue (ii): Whether the challenge in the transferred cases, directed against the draft-stage resolution and scheme, was premature.
Analysis: The transferred cases were at a preliminary stage. The statutory procedure contemplated objections, hearing, and consideration by the competent authority before any final adverse consequence could arise. Since the applicants still had the opportunity to place their objections before the authority and pursue statutory remedies thereafter, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of that challenge at that stage.
Conclusion: The challenge was held premature and was not entertained on merits.
Final Conclusion: The principal appeals succeeded and the High Court's contrary view on the core statutory issues was set aside, while the transferred cases were left to proceed in accordance with the statutory process at the draft stage.
Ratio Decidendi: A town planning scheme under the Act is a distinct statutory mechanism from a development plan, and lapse of a reservation in the development plan does not bar inclusion of the same land in a scheme framed under Section 40, provided the statutory procedure and compensatory framework of the Act are followed.
TaxTMI 
