- (1.)Civil Appeal Nos.1542-44 of 2001 have been preferred challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2000, passed in Special Civil Application Nos.1189, 4494 and 4659 of 1998 by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, wherein the Writ Petition filed by the respondents has been partly allowed holding that Section 40(3)(jj)(a) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1976') would be operative for the land other than the land covered by Section 20(2) of the Act 1976, though upheld the validity of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Act 1976. Civil Appeal Nos.1545-50 of 2001 have been preferred by the State of Gujarat against the same judgment raising the grievance to the same extent.
Civil Appeal Nos.1551-56 of 2001 have been filed by the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'AUDA') against the same judgment passed in same cases alongwith Special Civil Application Nos.4859, 5934, 7476 of 1998 and 4271 of 2000.

Civil Appeal No. 1864 of 2014 has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.10912 of 2009, wherein the matter stood disposed of in terms of the subject matter in appeals referred to above.

In Transferred Case (C) Nos.12-13 of 2010, Writ Petition Nos.2879 and 2880 of 2009 had been filed by the tenure holders/ petitioners before the High Court of Gujarat and as the same factual and legal issues are involved therein, the petitions stood transferred to this court.

(2.)As similar factual and legal issues are involved in all the cases for convenience T.P. (C) Nos. 12-13 of 2010 and Civil Appeal Nos. 1542-44 of 2001 are taken to be the leading cases. All these matters relate to the validity and issues of interpretation of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Act 1976 and application of certain statutory provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1979'). The basic question that has been raised on behalf of the tenure- holders (Association of land owners) is that whether the provisions contained in Sections 40(3)(jj) of the Act 1976 are ultra-vires of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Constitution') and have also challenged the action on the part of the Municipal Corporations (Ahmedabad and Surat) for declaring the intention to frame town planning schemes by issuing notifications, and further to hold that the action of the Municipal Corporations to take away land of the tenure-holders to the extent of 50% without paying any compensation as ultra-vires and further challenged the respective resolutions of the State Government in this regard.
The main contention of the respondents before the High Court was that by way of the impugned legislation, the appellants have designed a circuitous method to acquire land without paying any amount of compensation. The ancillary ground urged is that the land which was not acquired on payment of compensation under Section 20 of the Act 1976 cannot again be acquired indirectly and without payment of compensation by introducing the impugned legislation enabling Authority to prepare a town planning scheme and reserve the land to the extent of specified percentage for public purposes like roads, parks, play grounds, gardens and open spaces. Further, as per Section 40(3)(jj)(a)(iv) of the Act, 1976 the sale of land by the Appropriate Authority for raising money for the purpose of providing infrastructural facilities is beyond legislative competence being outside the purview of Entry 18 of List-II and Entry 20 of the concurrent list contained in 7th Schedule to the Constitution.

Moreover, compensation payable under Section 82 of the Act, 1976 in respect of property or right injuriously affected by the scheme, on the basis of market value calculated on the date of issue of intention to frame a scheme, is not an adequate compensation. Further, it was not justified under the town planning scheme or the urban development to permit acquisition of certain percentage of properties of citizens for its disposal in the hands of public authorities for the purpose of raising its fund, even to be used for further development. Under the Act 1976, Section 40(3)(j) as it originally stood, provided for reserving only 10 per cent in the town planning scheme for providing housing accommodation to the members of the weaker sections. Therefore, the amendment by which the said area has been increased from 10% to 15% is not only unwarranted but also illegal.

(3.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to these matters are as under:
A. In 1963, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'AMC') prepared and submitted a development plan under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "Bombay Act") whereby the lands of the respondents known as the 'green belt' were kept for open space and recreation. On 21.8.1965, the State Government sanctioned the development plan which came into force on 1.10.1965.

B. AMC prepared its revised development plan and published it on 15.1.1976 whereby lands of the respondents were reserved for "public housing".

C. The Bombay Act was replaced by the Act 1976 under which AUDA was alone competent to draft development plan.

D. The State Government sanctioned the development plan on 2.11.1987 which came into force on 3.12.1987 whereby the area known as 'green belt' was reserved for "public housing for different government organizations".

E. The AUDA prepared draft revised development plan which was published on 29.11.1997. The land reserved for "public housing for different government organizations" was de-reserved and put under the category as "restricted residential utility services and other uses zones".

F. The AUDA in exercise of the powers under Section 21 of the Act 1976 came out with a draft revised development plan in the year 1998.

G. The respondents herein filed a Writ Petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging the draft revised development plan and for direction to the appellants herein to acquire their lands as per the plan of 1987 within a period of 6 months failing which the plan would lapse.

H. The Act 1976 was amended on 1.5.1999 and Section 40(3)(jj) was inserted. The writ petition was amended and the vires of Sections 12 and 40(3)(jj) of the Act 1976 were also challenged.

I. The AUDA vide its resolution dated 5.5.1999 approved the proposed revised development plan. Declarations were made in the year 2000 for making town planning schemes covering "restricted residential utility services and other uses zones".

J. The writ petition was partly allowed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2000. Hence, these appeals.