Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Acceptance of Compensation and Allotted Land Precludes Further Claims – Supreme Court on Town Planning Scheme Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling dated May 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case involving a dispute over land allotment under Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi. The apex court dismissed the appeals filed by Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, marking the conclusion of a prolonged legal battle concerning the adequacy of compensation and the allotment of land under the town planning scheme initiated under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

The dispute centered on the claim by the appellants for compensation for a reduced plot area and the corporation’s alleged failure to provide possession of the initially allotted land as per the town planning scheme. The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, and its various sections provided the legal framework under which the town planning scheme was modified, impacting the appellants’ land.

The Supreme Court delved into the complex legal arguments presented, focusing on the factual matrix that the appellants were allotted Final Plot No. 187 after a revised scheme reduced the area from the initially allotted Final Plot No. 463. It was noted by the court that the acceptance of Final Plot No. 187 and the compensation for the shortfall in area precluded the appellants from claiming additional land.

Justice Sanjay Kumar, delivering the judgment, highlighted, “Having accepted the plot allotted to them upon variation of the scheme without demur or protest, the plaintiffs cannot now seek to reopen the negligence and delay, if any, on the part of the Corporation prior to such variation.”

The judgment detailed the court's assessment of the compensation provided under the revised town planning scheme, emphasizing the appellants’ acceptance of the reduced plot and the associated compensation without objection. This acceptance barred them from later contesting the sufficiency of the compensation or the terms of the revised plot allotment.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court, which had favored the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, affirming that the compensation offered was adequate under the provisions of the revised town planning scheme and that the trial court should not have directed the allocation of additional land when the appellants accepted the revised scheme without challenge. The apex court's decision reinforces the binding nature of accepted compensation terms under revised town planning schemes and underscores the importance of statutory compliance in urban development and land allocation matters.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024

Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Latest Legal News