Venkatachaliah, J. - (1.) Appellants seek special leave to appeal to this Court from the common judgment and order dated 4th April, 1977 of the High Court of Gujarat in F.A. No. 526 of 1975 and 509 of 1975. We have heard Shri P. H. Parekh for the Appellants and Shri T. U. Mehta for the Respondents. Special leave is granted and the appeals are heard and disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) The two appeals arise out of two of the four suits instituted in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad where the appellants assailed the validity of the Ahmedabad Town Planning Scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955.The grounds of the challenge were that the mandatory requirements of sub-rules (3) and (4) of R. 21 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 had not been complied with. Appellants contended that they were tenants in occupation of certain properties belonging to a Public Trust in the City of Ahmedabad; that the reconstitution of the plots under the Scheme respecting the property in their occupation would adversely affect their interests and that, therefore, the Town Planning Officer was required to give special notice to all the "persons-interested" in any plot and to give to all "affected persons" affected by the scheme sufficient opportunity of stating their views. The suits were decreed by the trial Court.
(3.) But the appeals preferred by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation before the High Court were allowed by the learned single Judge who, following the Full Bench decision of that court in Dungarlal Harichand v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 17 Guj LR 1152, held that sub (3) and (4) were not mandatory. This was affirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeals.;