Final town planning scheme and summary eviction upheld where occupation rights had ceased and extra notice defects were not fatal.

Once a final town planning scheme becomes operative as a legislative measure, an occupier's right to remain in possession can cease without reservation, and summary eviction may follow as an administrative step to enforce the scheme. The Court held that non-compliance with individual notice requirements at the reconstitution stage did not invalidate the scheme once it had statutory force. It further held that the summary eviction machinery applied where the real issue was cessation of the right to occupy, even if a building stood on the plot, and that a prior adjudicatory show-cause process was not required. The eviction notices were also upheld as not shown to be unreasonably short.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with individual notice requirements at the stage of reconstitution of plots under the town planning scheme rendered the scheme ultra vires and vulnerable to challenge after it had become operative as part of the Act; (ii) Whether the summary eviction machinery under Section 54 and Rule 27 could be invoked in respect of occupiers of plots containing buildings, or whether such cases necessarily fell within the separate machinery for removal of offending constructions under Section 55 and Rule 28; (iii) Whether the eviction notice under Section 54 required a prior show-cause notice and a judicial determination of wrongful occupation as a matter of natural justice; and (iv) Whether the short time granted in the eviction notices was unreasonable so as to invalidate them.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with individual notice requirements at the stage of reconstitution of plots under the town planning scheme rendered the scheme ultra vires and vulnerable to challenge after it had become operative as part of the Act.

Analysis: The final sanctioned scheme, once brought into force, operated as a legislative measure by virtue of Section 51(3). The Court held that the individual notice requirements at the reconstitution stage were only additional procedural safeguards and not essential minimum requirements. Their breach did not nullify the scheme or permit a challenge once the scheme had acquired statutory force. The earlier contrary view was treated as no longer good law.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners. The scheme was not rendered void on account of the alleged want of individual notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the summary eviction machinery under Section 54 and Rule 27 could be invoked in respect of occupiers of plots containing buildings, or whether such cases necessarily fell within the separate machinery for removal of offending constructions under Section 55 and Rule 28.

Analysis: Section 54 was held to deal with occupation of land after rights under the final scheme had ceased, while Section 55 dealt with buildings or works contravening the scheme or erected without compliance. The two provisions occupy different fields. Where the final scheme extinguished the right of occupation and no reservation remained in favour of the occupier, eviction under Section 54 was an administrative step to give effect to the scheme. The existence of a building on the land did not convert the matter into one under Section 55 if the real question was simply cessation of the right to occupy.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners. Section 54 and Rule 27 were held applicable.

Issue (iii): Whether the eviction notice under Section 54 required a prior show-cause notice and a judicial determination of wrongful occupation as a matter of natural justice.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between cases where the scheme still left room for interpretative controversy and cases where all rights had already ceased under the final scheme. In the latter situation, the power of eviction was administrative, not quasi-judicial. The minimum requirement of fairness was satisfied by the notice calling upon the occupier to vacate within a reasonable time. A separate adjudicatory show-cause process was not mandatory where no substantial defence survived after the scheme had become final and binding.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners. No prior adjudicatory show-cause notice was in the facts of the case.

Issue (iv): Whether the short time granted in the eviction notices was unreasonable so as to invalidate them.

Analysis: Reasonableness of time depends on the facts and circumstances. Here, the petitioners knew that the final scheme had become operative and that their rights to occupy had ceased. Their continued occupation was prolonged by interim orders, not by any legal entitlement. In that background, the time granted in the notices was not shown to have caused prejudice or to be so unreasonable as to vitiate the notices.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioners. The notices were not invalid for want of reasonable time.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed in their entirety, the interim relief was vacated, and the rule was discharged, with the eviction notices under the final town planning scheme upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a final town planning scheme has become operative as a legislative measure and an occupier's right to remain in possession has ceased without reservation, summary eviction under the scheme is permissible as an administrative act, and breach of merely additional procedural safeguards does not invalidate the scheme or the eviction notice.

---