MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD Vs. PUSPAVATI HANDRAJ THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in each of these cases, is the original paintiff and the respondents are original defendants. The reliefs which the appellant claimed related to possession of the suit premises, damages in lieu of rent up to the date of the suit, mesne profits and costs. The basis of claim of the plaintiff for possession was that the TP. Scheme No. 5, as finally sanctioned, applied to the locality and thereunder the plot of land in question stood allotted or reserved for widening the road. The suits were resisted by the respondents inter alia, on the ground that they were not maintainable. In the written statement filed in Civil Suit No. 98 of 1972, a specific plea was taken to the effect that since the suit property vested absolutely in the appellant free from all encumbrances as a result of the allotment/reservation made under the Town Planning Scheme for the purpose of widening the road, the original relationship which subsisted between the parties, namely, relationship of landlord and tenant, came to an end. Eviction from the suit property could not, therefore, be obtained by pursuing the ordinary remedy of suit under the common law and even assuming that the concerned respondents had ceased to be entitled to occupy the suit shops under the final scheme, they could be evicted only in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Similar plea was also raised by the concerned respondents in the other two matters. With the other pleas raised in defence, we are not concerned at this stage and they need not be adverted to.

(2.) The trial Court raised, amongst others, issue No. 6 in Civil Suits Nos. 2886 and 2911 of 1971 whether the suit was not legally maintainable. In Civil Suit No. 98 of 1972, the Trial Court raised the issue whether it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The Trial Court found in favour of the respondents on these issues.

(3.) The Division Bench in Murtujakhan v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, 16 GLR 806, pointed out that once the final scheme is sanctioned, by statutory operation, the title of the various owners is readjusted and that the said consequences followed from the provisions of Section 53 of the Act. Under clause (a) of Section 53, all lands in the area, which may be subjected to the scheme would absolutely vest in the local authority if under the Scheme the same were allotted to the local authority. Similarly under clause (b) of Section 53 in respect of those lands which do not vest absolutely in the local authority, but which are otherwise reconstituted, all rights in the original plots stand determined and the reconstituted plots become subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer. New ownership rights might come into existence on the allotment of lands when none existed prior to the sanction of the scheme. Upon the operation of clause (a) or clause (b) as the case may be, some of the persons who were original occupants of lands might cease to become entitled to occupy the lands in question. Such persons will have to be evicted from such lands and possession of the lands will have to be handed over to those who became entitled to the same under the scheme. A special machinery has been provided in Section 54 which confers power of sum mary eviction on the local authority and authorises it to evict occupants who cease to be entitled to occupy the lands in their occupation under the final scheme.