Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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