Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan 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

Similar News