ARYAKUMAR MAHASABHA Vs. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER BARODA
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,BARODA
Click here to view full judgement.
G.T.NANAVATI, P.D.DESAI -
(1.) The first petitioner is a Public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Acts 1950 and the second petitioner is one of the trustees of the said Trust The first respondent is the Town Planning Officer Baroda and the second respondent is Baroda Municipal Corporation.
(2.) The question which arises for determination in this petition is whether the first respondent has performed the duty cast upon him under sec. 32(1) (vii) of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with rule 21 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and if so whether the duty has been performed in accordance with law and within the framework of the statute which conferred the duty.
(3.) A few facts require to be set out to appreciate the point. The petitioner Trust which appears to run several institutions with a view to dispensing education and knowledge and in order to instruct and enlighten women in various walks of life owns original S. Nos. 767 and 768 in village Nagarwada Taluka and District Baroda. The lands in question which originally admeasured 55745 sq. metres are governed by the Baroda Town Planning Scheme No. 9. Under the draft scheme the land owned by the petitioner Trust is given Final Plot No. 120 and upon its reconstitution it now admeasures 56565 sq. metres. After the draft of the said scheme was sanctioned by the State Government the first respondent was appointed as the Town Planning Officer. As a result of his various decisions the petitioner Trust was awarded certain compensation and it was required to make certain contribution. Those decisions appear to have been reached by the first respondent and recorded and entered in the scheme on September 28 1976 By a communication dated October 14 1976 Annexure B the first respondent communicated to the petitioner Trust his various decisions taken in respect of its plot. It requires to be exphasised at this stage that the communication Annexure B mentions inter alia the amount of compensation to which the petitioner Trust became entitled as also the amount of contribution recoverable from the petitioner Trust under various heads. The communication however does not on the face of it record and transmit to the petitioner Trust the decision if any taken by the first respondent on the question of the determination of the amount of exemption if any from the pay ment of the contribution under clause (vii) of sec. 32(1). It is no longer in dispute however that no exemption from payment of the contribution was granted to the petitioner Trust by the first respondent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.