http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: PRAKASH AMICHAND SHAH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/07/1981

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1597            1982 SCR  (1)  81  1981 SCC  (3) 508        1981 SCALE  (3)1084  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1986 SC 468  (5)

ACT:      Bombay Town  Planning Act, 1954-Sections 32, 33, 34, 65 and 69-Scope  of. Words  and phrases-"injurious  affection"- Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:      The Bombay  Town Planning  Act, 1954  (which  was  made applicable  to  the  State  of  Gujarat)  provides  for  the compulsory acquisition  of land  and payment of compensation for  the  land  so  acquired  for  the  development  or  re- development or  improvement of  the entire  area within  the jurisdiction of  a  local  authority  such  as  a  municipal corporation or  a municipality.  The  Town  Planning  Scheme prepared under the Act may make provision for laying out new streets or  roads, allotment  or  reservation  of  land  for roads, open  spaces and  such other matters not inconsistent with the  objects of  the Act.  Before proceeding to acquire any land  for town  planning purposes, a local authority, by resolution, must  declare  its  intention  to  make  a  town planning scheme and publish it in the manner prescribed. The draft scheme  may contain  proposals such  as to  form a re- constituted plot  by the  alteration of the boundaries of an original plot, to form a reconstituted plot by the transfer, wholly or  partly, of the adjoining land, to allot a plot to any owner  dispossessed of  a land  in  furtherance  of  the scheme. Any person affected by the scheme may communicate to the local authority concerned any objection relating to such scheme. The scheme is then forwarded to the State Government for the requisite sanction.      The scheme  of the  Act envisages  the appointment of a Town Planning Officer and constitution of a Board of Appeal. It is  the duty  of the  Town Planning  Officer to draw up a final scheme  in accordance  with the draft scheme. When the final scheme  comes into  force all  lands required  by  the local authority shall vest absolutely in that authority free from all  encumbrances and  all rights in the original plots which  have  been  reconstituted  shall  determine  and  the reconstituted plots  shall  become  subject  to  the  rights settled by the Town Planning Officer.      Section 64 (1) enumerates the sums payable or spent and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

the expenses incurred by the local authority which are to be included in the costs of a town planning scheme.      Under section 65 increment means the amount by which at the date  of the  declaration of  intention to make a scheme the market  value of a final plot calculated on the basis as if the  improvement contemplated  in the  scheme  had  stood completed on  that date.  Provision is made in section 67 to make adjust- 82 ment between  the rights  to compensation  for loss  of land suffered by the owner and the liability to make contribution to the  finance of  the scheme.  Compensation payable to any owner for loss of lands has to be determined on the basis of the market  value of  the land  at the  date  on  which  the declaration of  intention to make a scheme was made. Section 69 contemplates  that the  owner of  any property  or  right which is  injuriously affected  by  the  making  of  a  town planning scheme  shall be  entitled to  obtain  compensation from the  local authority  or from  any person  bona fide or partly from  such person as the Town Planning Officer may in each case determine.      Section 32  enumerates  duties  of  the  Town  Planning Officer and  section 33  provides  that  except  in  matters arising out  of clauses  (v), (vi),  (vii),  (ix),  (x)  and (xiii) of section 32 (1) every decision of the Town Planning Officer shall  be final  and conclusive  and binding  on all persons. An  appeal from  the decision  of the Town Planning Officer under  the six  clauses mentioned in section 33 lies to the Board of Appeal.      The Surat  Municipal Corporation declared its intention to make  a town  planning scheme  under section  22  of  the Bombay Town  Planning Act,  1954. The draft scheme published included an  area of  1.37 lac  square meters  of which  the appellant was the lessee.      Dissatisfied with  the compensation  awarded to  him by the  Town   Planning  Officer   the  apportionment   of  the compensation between the lessor and lessee and the propriety of reserving  such a  large area  of land for the scheme the appellant preferred  an appeal  under section  34 read  with section 32  (1) of the Act to the Board of Appeal. The Board rejected the  appeal as being not maintainable on the ground that the  Act did  not provide  an appeal from a decision of the Town  Planning Officer  on matters  dealt with by him in the impugned order.      Agreeing with  the  Board  of  Appeal  the  High  Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition.      In the  appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the  appellant that  the Town Planning Officer’s decision was appealable  under clause  (viii)  or  clause  (xiii)  of section 32(1)  because  he  has  a  duty  to  calculate  the increment to  accrue in respect of each plot included in the final scheme in accordance with the provision of section 65.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: The  High Court  was right  in holding  that  the decision of the Town Planning Officer determining the amount of compensation  in the appellant’s case was not appealable. [96 F]      The decision  of the Town Planning Officer is final and conclusive in all matters referred to in the various clauses of section  32 (1)  except those  mentioned in  clauses (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xiii). [94 E]      The  increment   referred  to  in  section  65  is  the difference in  the market  value of the same final plot with the improvements and without the improvements on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

83 the date  of the  declaration of intention to make a scheme. The  value   of  the   original  plot  does  not  arise  for consideration under  clause (viii).  Form B  referred to  in clause (v)  of rule  17 of  the Bombay  Town Planning Rules, 1955 makes  it clear that the increment is the difference in value  of   the  same   final  plot  in  its  developed  and undeveloped condition.  This form keeps the valuation of the original plot  distinct from  that of  the final  plot.  The appellant’s case  cannot fall under clause (viii) of section 32. [94 G-99 B]      What is contemplated by section 69 is that the property or right  which is  injuriously affected  by the making of a town planning  scheme is a property or right other than that acquired for  the purposes  of the  scheme. The  property or right affected  remains with  the owner  who is  entitled to compensation for  such injurious  affection. When  under the Act a  plot of  land is  taken for  the purposes  of a  town planning scheme  it cannot  be  said  that  land  itself  is injuriously affected. [95 C-E]      There is  no compelling reason for restructuring clause (xiii) suggested  by the  appellant. Taking  acquisition  of land to  mean "injurious  affection" of  the  land  acquired would be inconsistent with the entire scheme of the Act.                                                   [95 F]      In determining  the amount  of compensation awarded for land acquired  under the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  that  Act requires the  Court to  take into  consideration the  damage sustained by  the  "person  interested"  by  reason  of  the acquisition injuriously  affecting his  other  property."  A "person interested"  means a  person claiming an interest in compensation to  be made  on account  of the  acquisition of land under  the Land  Acquisition Act  and the damage is for injurious affection  of some  property other  than the  land acquired. There  is nothing  in the  Act to suggest that the generally accepted  meaning of  the  expressions  "injurious affection" used  in  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  should  be construed differently in this Act. [95 G-96 B]      The owner  of an original plot who is not provided with a plot  in the  final scheme  gets his right to compensation from  section   71.  The   principle  for   determining  the compensation is the same whether an owner of land is given a reconstituted plot  or not.  Compensation is  payable on the basis of  the market  value of  the  plot  at  the  date  of declaration of  the intention  to  make  a  scheme.  In  the appellant’s case  it would be the value of the original plot and not  the final plot. In determining the difference under section 32  (1) (iii)  the Town Planning Officer has to find out the  market value  of each  of the original plots at the date of  the declaration  of intention to make a scheme. The Act  contains   necessary  provisions   for  estimating  the compensation payable  to an  owner of  land who has not been given a reconstituted plot. [96 C-E]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1224 of 1977.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  judgment and  order dated the  3rd September,  1976 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 1501 of 1974 84      F.S. Nariman,  Dr. Y.S.  Chitale, K.S.  Nanavati,  C.R. Gandhi, P.H.  Parekh  and  Miss  Vineeta  Caprihan  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

Appellant.      Soli J.  Sorabjee,  G.N.  Desai  and  M.N.  Shroff  for Respondent No. 1      G.N. Desai,  Prashant  G.  Desai  and  S.C.  Patel  for Respondent No. 2      S.K. Dholakia  and  R.C.  Bhatia  for  Intervener-Surat Municipality.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      GUPTA  J.   On  June   26,  1965  the  Surat  Municipal Corporation,  then   called  Surat   Borough   Municipality, declared its  intention to make a town planning scheme under section  22   of  the   Bombay  Town   Planning  Act,   1954 (hereinafter referred  as the  Act). This  was Town Planning Scheme Surat  No. 8  (Umarwada). On  July 4,  1967  a  draft scheme was  published which  included among  other lands  an area admeasuring  1,37,961 sq.  meters of which appellant as Karta of a Hindu undivided family was the lessee. On May 10, 1968 Government  of Gujarat  granted sanction  to the  draft scheme. Before  the  Town  Planning  Officer  the  appellant claimed compensation  for deprivation  of his  right in  the land at  Rs. 50 per sq. yd. By his order made on November 4, 1971 the  Town Planning  Officer awarded compensation to the appellant at  the rate of Rs. 2.40 p. per sq. mt.; the total compensation awarded  was Rs.  3,31,455. Not  satisfied with the decision  of the  Town Planning  Officer  the  appellant preferred an  appeal. Section  34 read with section 32(1) of the Act  provides an  appeal from  the decision  of the Town Planning Officer  on certain specified matters to a Board of Appeal. Before the Board of Appeal the appellant reduced his claim to  Rs. 9.50  p. per sq. mt. The appellant’s grievance was that the compensation awarded was inadequate and further that the  apportionment of  compensation between  the lessor and the  lessee was  not  proper.  He  also  questioned  the propriety of  reserving such  a large  area of  land for the scheme. The  Board of  Appeal held  that the  appeal was not maintainable as  the Act  did not  provide an  appeal from a decision of  the Town Planning Officer on matters dealt with by him  in his  order dated  November 4, 1971. The appellant then challenged  the order of the Board of Appeal before the Gujarat High  Court by  filing  a  writ  petition  in  which certain provisions  of  the  Act  were  also  challenged  as unconstitutional and it was claimed 85 that the  town planning scheme was consequently invalid. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition agreeing with the Board  of Appeal  that the  appeal was  incompetent. The constitutional questions  raised in  the writ petition could not be decided as Emergency was then in force in the country and rights  conferred  by  Articles  14,19  and  31  of  the Constitution on which the appellant’s contentions were based remained suspended  at the  time. The High Court also relied on the  decision of  this Court  in State of Gujarat v. Shri Shantilal Mangaldas  which had  upheld the  validity of  the Act.      The appeal  before us  is by special leave. Mr. Nariman for the  appellant submitted  that in  case we held that the appeal preferred  by his  client before  the Board of Appeal was maintainable  he would not press the grounds questioning the constitutional validity of the Act at this stage and the matter should  then go  back to  the Board  of Appeal  for a decision on  the adequacy of the Compensation; if however we found that the Board of Appeal was right in holding that the appeal was  not maintainable, he would then urge the grounds challenging the validity of the Act.      The question  is whether the order of the Town Planning

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

Officer determining  the amount  of compensation  payable to the appellant  falls within any of the appealable clauses of section 32(1).  To be able to answer the question it will be necessary to  examine the  various clauses  of section 32(1) and also  certain other provisions of the Act. The scheme of the Act  has been analysed by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal  Mangaldas  (supra)  and  earlier  in  Maneklal Chhottalal and  others v.  M.G. Makwana  and others; we will not  attempt   another  comprehensive   survey  of  all  the provisions of  the Act but refer to those of them which have some bearing  on the  question that falls to be decided. Mr. Nariman drew  our notice  to the  decision of  this Court in State of  Karnataka v. Shri Ranganatha Reddy where Untwalia, J, speaking  for the  court said  at page  652 of the report that in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, this Court apparently seeking  to  explain  Shantilal’s  case  had  "in substance" overruled  the decision. Even if Shantilal’s case was 86 overruled, that was on another point and the analysis of the scheme of the Act made in Shantilal cannot be questioned.      The long  title of the Act states that it is an "Act to consolidate and  amend the  law for the making and execution of town  planning schemes". The Act has been made applicable to the  State  of  Gujarat.  It  is  an  Act  providing  for compulsory acquisition  of land  and payment of compensation for the  land taken.  Some  of  the  terms  and  expressions defined in  section 2 of the Act are relevant. Section 2 (2) defines  "development  Plan"  as  meaning  a  plan  for  the development or  redevelopment or  improvement of  the entire area within  the jurisdiction  of a local authority prepared under section 3. Section 3 requires every local authority to carry out  a survey  of the area within its jurisdiction and prepare and  publish a development plan and submit it to the State Government  for sanction. Sub-section (4) of section 2 defines  local   authority  as   a   municipal   corporation constituted   under    the   Bombay   Provincial   Municipal Corporation Act,  1949  or  a  municipality  constituted  or deemed to  be constituted  under the  Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1973.  Section 2  (9) defines "reconstituted plot" as a plot which  is in  any way  altered by  the making of a town planning scheme.  Chapter III  of the  Act provides  for the making of  town planning schemes. Sub-section (2) of section 18 which  occurs in this chapter states that a town planning scheme may  make provisions for any of the matters specified in clauses  (a) to  (k) of  the sub-section.  These  matters include laying  out of land, reclamation of unhealthy areas, laying out new streets of roads, construction and removal of buildings,  bridges  and  other  structures,  providing  for drainage,  lighting   and   water   supply,   allotment   or reservation of land for roads, open spaces, schools, markets and public purposes of all kinds. Clause (1) says that apart from the  matters specified,  the town  planning scheme  may provide for  "such other  matter not  inconsistent with  the objects of this Act as may be prescribed".      Chapter IV  which contains  section 21  to  section  30 bears the heading "Declaration of Intention to Make a Scheme and Making  of a  Draft Scheme".  Under section  22 a  local authority may  by resolution declare its intention to make a town planning  scheme and  is required to publish the scheme in the  prescribed manner and despatch a copy thereof to the State Government. Section 23 (1) provides that following the declaration  of  intention  to  make  a  scheme,  the  local authority shall make a draft scheme for the area 87

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

in respect  of which  the  declaration  has  been  made  and publish it in the prescribed manner. Section 25 mentions the particulars that  a draft scheme shall contain; they include among other  things, -the area, ownership and tenure of each original plot;  the extent  to which it is proposed to alter the boundaries  of original  plots; and  an estimate  of the nett cost  of the scheme to be borne by the local authority. Sub-section (1)  of section 26 says that in the draft scheme the size  and shape  of every  reconstituted plot  shall  be determined; as  far as  possible, to  render it suitable for building purposes  and where the plot is already built upon, to ensure  that the building complies with the provisions of the scheme  as regards  open spaces. For the purpose of sub- section (1) the draft scheme may contain proposals which are enumerated in  clauses (a)  to (e) of sub-section (2) of the section. We may here refer to clauses (a), (b) and (d):      "(a) to form  a reconstituted plot by the alteration of           the boundaries of an original plot;      (b)  to form  a  reconstituted  plot  by  the  transfer           wholly or partly of the adjoining lands;      (c)  ...                   ...                ...      (d)  to allot  a plot to any owner dispossessed of land           in furtherance of the scheme.      (e)  ...                   ...                ... Under  section  27,  within  one  month  from  the  date  of publication of the draft scheme, any person affected by such scheme may communicate in writing to the local authority any objection relating  to such scheme which the local authority has to consider. Section 28 (1) requires the local authority to submit  the draft  scheme together with the objections to the State  Government and  at the  same time  apply for  its sanction. Under  sub-section (2)  the State  Government  may within six  months from  the date  of the  submission of the draft scheme  either sanction  such scheme  with or  without modifications and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose or refuse to give sanction.      Chapter V  which includes  section  31  to  section  43 provides for  the appointment  of the  Town Planning Officer and constitution  of the  Board of  Appeal. Within one month from the  date on which the sanction of the State Government to the draft scheme is 88 published, the State Government is required under section 31 (1) to  appoint a  Town Planning  Officer. The duties of the Town Planning  Officer are enumerated in section 32 (1). The provisions of  sections 32,  33 and 34 have a direct bearing on the  question  of  appealability  of  the  Town  Planning Officer’s decision,  but we  think it  would be more helpful for appreciating  the contentions  raised on  behalf of  the appellant if  we referred to certain other provisions of the Act before turning to the aforesaid section in Chapter V. We need only  mention here  that drawing up the final scheme in accordance with the draft scheme is one of the duties of the Town Planning  Officer who  is required to forward the final scheme to  the State  Government for sanction. In Chapter VI section 53  is the  only relevant provision. Section 53 lays down:           "On the  day on  which the final scheme comes into      force:-      (a)  all lands  required by  the local authority shall,           unless it  is otherwise determined in such scheme,           vest absolutely  in the  local authority free from           all encumbrances;      (b)  all rights  in the  original plots which have been           reconstituted    shall     determine    and    the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

         reconstituted plots  shall become  subject to  the           rights settled by the Town Planning Officer". Chapter VIII  deals with "Finance". It contains, inter alia, provisions specifying  the principles  on which compensation for the  land  taken  is  to  be  determined.  This  chapter includes section 64 to section 78. Section 64 (1) enumerates in clauses  (a) to  (f) the  sums payable  or spent  and the expenses incurred  by the  local authority  which are  to be included in  the costs of a town planning scheme. Clause (d) mentions the  sums payable as compensation for land reserved or designated  for any  public purpose  or purposes  of  the local authority.  Clause (f)  of section  64  (1)  reads  as follows:           "any amount  by which  the total  of the values of      the original  plots exceeds  the total of the values of      the plots  included in  the final  scheme, each of such      plots being  estimated at  its market value at the date      of the  declaration of  intention to make a scheme with      all the  buildings and   works thereon at that date and      without references  to improvements contemplated in the      scheme other than improvements due to the alteration of      its boundaries." 89 Sub-section (2) of section 64 provides:           "if in  any case  the total  of the  values of the      plots included in the final scheme exceeds the total of      the values  of the  original plots,  each of such plots      being estimated in the manner provided in clause (f) of      sub-section (1),  then the  amount of such excess shall      be deducted  in arriving  at the costs of the scheme as      defined in sub-section (1)." Section  65  explains  the  meaning  of  increment  for  the purposes of the Act as follows:           "For the purposes of this Act the increments shall      be deemed  to be the amount by which at the date of the      declaration of  intention to  make a  scheme the market      value of  a plot included in the final scheme estimated      on the  assumption that  the scheme  has been completed      would exceed  at the  same date the market value of the      same plot  estimated without  reference to improvements      contemplated in the scheme:           Provided that  in estimating such values the value      of buildings or other works erected or in the course of      erection  on   such  plot   shall  not  be  taken  into      consideration." Section 66  (1) states that the costs of the scheme shall be met wholly  or in part by a contribution to be levied by the local authority  on each plot in the final scheme calculated in proportion  to the increment which is estimated to accrue in respect  of such plot by the Town Planning Officer. Under sub-section (2)  of section  66  the  "owner  of  each  plot included in  the final  scheme shall be primarily liable for the payment  of the contribution leviable in respect of such plot". Under  section 67 the amount by which the total value of the  plots in the final scheme with all the buildings and works thereon allotted to a person falls short of or exceeds the total value of the original plots with all the buildings and works  thereon of  such person shall be deducted from or added to,  as the  case may  be, the  contributions leviable from such  person, each of such plots being estimated at its market value  at the date of the declaration of intention to make a scheme without reference to improvements contemplated in the  scheme other than improvements due to the alteration of its  boundaries. As  Shah J.,  speaking for  the Court in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas and others observed:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

"(Section 67)  is intended  to make  adjustments between the right to compensation for loss of 90 land suffered  by the  owner,  and  the  liability  to  make contribution to  the finances  of the  scheme".  Section  69 deals with  the  compensation  payable  in  respect  of  any property or  right which  is  injuriously  affected  by  the making of a town planning scheme. The section says:           "The owner  of any  property  or  right  which  is      injuriously affected  by the  making of a town planning      scheme shall,  if he  makes a  claim  before  the  Town      Planning  Officer   within  the   prescribed  time,  be      entitled to obtain compensation in respect thereof from      the local  authority or  from any  person benefited  or      partly from  the local  authority and  partly from such      person as  the Town  Planning Officer  may in each case      determine.           Provided that  the value of such property or right      shall be held to be its market value at the date of the      declaration of  intention to  make a scheme or the date      of a  notification under  sub-section (1) of section 24      without reference  to improvements  contemplated in the      scheme". Section 71  deals with  the case  of an owner of land who is not given a plot in the final scheme and also provides for a case where the amount payable to an owner exceeds the amount due from him. Section 71 is as follows:           "If the  owner of an original plot is not provided      with a  plot in the final scheme or if the contribution      to be levied from him under section 66 is less than the      total amount  to be deducted therefrom under any of the      provisions of  this Act,  the net  amount of  his  loss      shall be  payable to him by the local authority in cash      or in  such other  way as  may be  agreed upon  by  the      parties". The appellant  in the  present case  was not provided with a plot in  the final scheme. Section 87 in Chapter IX empowers the State  Government to  make  rules  consistent  with  the provisions of  the  Act  to  provide  for  all  matters  not specifically indicated therein.      The effect  of the  final scheme  coming into force has been summarized  by Shah  J., in  Shantilal’s case;  we  may quote here  the following  extract  from  page  349  of  the report:           "On the  coming into force of the scheme all lands      which are  required  by  the  local  authority,  unless      otherwise 91      determined in the scheme, by the operation of s. 53 (a)      vest absolutely therein free from all encumbrances. The      result is  that there  is a  complete shuffling  up  of      plots of  land,  roads,  means  of  communication,  and      rearrangement  thereof.  The  original  plots  are  re-      constituted, their  shapes are altered, portions out of      plots are  separated, lands  belonging to  two or  more      owners are  combined into  a single plot, new roads are      laid out,  old roads  are diverted  or closed  up,  and      lands originally  belonging to  private owners are used      for public  purposes i.e.  for providing  open  spaces,      green belts  dairies etc.  In this process the whole or      parts of  a land  of one  person,  may  go  to  make  a      reconstituted plot,  and the  plot so reconstructed may      be allotted  to another person and the lands needed for      public purposes may be earmarked for those purposes.           The re-arrangement  of titles in the various plots

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

    and reservation  of lands  for public  purposes require      financial adjustments  to be  made. The  owner  who  is      deprived of  his land  has to  be compensated,  and the      owner who obtains a re-constituted plot in surroundings      which  are   conducive  to   better   sanitary   living      conditions has  to contribute  towards the  expenses of      the scheme.  This is  because on  the making  of a town      planning scheme  the value of the plot rises and a part      of the benefit which arises out of the unearned rise in      prices is  directed to be contributed towards financing      of the  scheme which enables the residents in that area      to more  amenities,  better  facilities  and  healthier      living conditions".      Under the  Act the compensation payable to an owner for loss of land has to be determined on the basis of the market value of  the land  at the  date on which the declaration of intention to make a scheme was made. On the question whether the  Act  specifies  a  principle  of  compensation,  it  is observed in Shantilal’s case at page 357 of the report:           "It is true that under the Act the market value of      the land  at the  date of  declaration of  intention to      make a scheme determines the amount to be adjusted, and      that is  the guiding  rule  in  respect  of  all  lands      covered by  the scheme.  The High  Court  was,  in  our      judgment, right  in holding  that enactment  of a  rule      determining payment  or adjustment  of price of land of      which the owner was deprived by the 92      scheme estimated  on the  market value  on the  date of      declaration of  the intention to make a scheme amounted      to specification  of a principle of compensation within      the meaning of Art, 31 (2). Specification of principles      means laying  down general  guiding rules applicable to      all persons or transactions governed thereby. Under the      Land Acquisition  Act compensation is determined on the      basis of  "market value" of the land on the date of the      notification under  s.4 (1)  of that  Act.  That  is  a      specification of  principle. Compensation determined on      the basis of market value prevailing on a date anterior      to  the   date  of  extinction  of  interest  is  still      determined on  a principle  specified. Whether an owner      of land  is given a reconstituted plot or not, the rule      for determining  what is  to  be  given  as  recompense      remains the  same. It  is a principle applicable to all      cases in  which by  virtue of the operation of the Town      Planning Act  a person  is deprived of his land whether      in whole or in part".      We may  now turn to sections 32, 33 and 34 occurring in chapter V.  It may be recalled that the appellant’s land was taken for  purposes of  the scheme  but he  was not  given a reconstituted plot.  Section 32  (1)  which  enumerates  the duties of the Town Planning Officer is set out below:           "32  (1)   In  accordance   with  the   prescribed      procedure the Town Planning Officer shall      (i)  after  notice  given  by  him  in  the  prescribed           manner, define  and demarcate  the areas  allotted           to, or  reserved, for  a public purpose or purpose           of  the  local  authority  and  the  reconstituted           plots;      (ii) after  notice  given  by  him  in  the  prescribed           manner,  determine,   in  the   case  in  which  a           reconstituted plot is to be allotted to persons in           ownership in common, the shares of such persons;      (iii)fix the  difference between the total of values of           the original  plots and the total of the values of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

         the  plots   included  in  the  final  scheme,  in           accordance with the provisions contained in clause           (f) of sub section (1) of section 64; 93      (iv) determine whether  the  areas  used,  allotted  or           reserved  for   a  public  purpose  of  the  local           authority are  beneficial wholly  or partly to the           owners or residents within the area of the scheme;      (v)  estimate  the  portion  of  the  sums  payable  as           compensation  on   each  plot  used,  allotted  or           reserved for  a public  purpose or  purpose of the           local authority  which is beneficial partly to the           owners or  residents within the area of the scheme           and partly  to the  general public, which shall be           included in the costs of the scheme;      (vi) calculate the  contribution to  be levied  on each           plot used,  allotted  or  reserved  for  a  public           purpose or purpose of the local authority which is           beneficial  partly  to  the  owners  or  residents           within the  area of  the scheme  and partly to the           general public;      (vii)determine the  amount of  exemption, if  any, from           the  payment  of  the  contribution  that  may  be           granted in  respect of  plots exclusively occupied           for the religious or charitable purposes;      (viii)estimate the  increment to  accrue in  respect of           each  plot   included  in   the  final  scheme  in           accordance  with   the  provisions   contained  in           section 65;      (ix) calculate the proportion in which the increment of           the plots  included in  the final  scheme shall be           liable to  contribution to the costs of the scheme           in accordance  with the  provisions  contained  in           section 66;      (x)  calculate the  contribution to  be levied  on each           plot included in the final scheme;      (xi) determine the amount to be deducted from, or added           to, as  the case may be, the contribution leviable           from a  person in  accordance with  the provisions           contained in section 67;      (xii)provide for  the total  or partial transfer of any           right in  an original plot to a reconstituted plot           or provide  for the  extinction of any right in an           original plot  in accordance  with the  provisions           contained in section 68; 94      (xiii)estimate in  reference to claims made before him,           after the  notice given  by him  in the prescribed           manner, the  compensation to  be paid to the owner           of any  property or  right injuriously affected by           the making of a town planning scheme in accordance           with the provisions contained in section 69;      (xiv)draw in  the prescribed  form the  final scheme in           accordance with the draft scheme:" There is  a proviso  to section 32 (1) which is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal.      Section 33 says:           "Except in  matters arising  out of  clauses  (v),      (vi), (vii), (ix), (x) and (xiii) of sub-section (1) of      section 32, every decision of the Town Planning Officer      shall be  final  and  conclusive  and  binding  on  all      persons." Section 34  provides an appeal to a Board of Appeal from any decision of  the Town  Planning Officer  under clauses  (v), (vi) (viii),  (ix), (x) and (xiii). Thus the decision of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

Town Planning Officer is final and conclusive in all matters referred to  in the various clauses of section 32 (1) except those mentioned  in (v), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xiii). It was  claimed on  behalf of  the appellant  that the  Town Planning Officer’s  decision in  the  appellant’s  case  was appealable either  under clause  (viii) or  clause (xiii) of section 32  (1). The  Town Planning Officer has a duty under clause (viii)  to  calculate  the  increment  to  accrue  in respect of  each plot included in the final scheme (which we will refer  to hereinafter  as the  final plot for brevity’s sake) in accordance with the provisions of section 65. Under section 65  increment means  the amount by which at the date of the  declaration of  the intention  to make a scheme, the market value  of a  final plot calculated on the basis as if the  improvements  contemplated  in  the  scheme  had  stood completed on  that date exceeds the market value of the same plot when  taken into  account without the improvements. The increment is  thus the difference in the market value of the same final  plot  with  the  improvements  and  without  the improvements  on  the  aforesaid  date.  The  value  of  the original plot  does not arise for consideration under clause (viii). Rule 17 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 sets out the  particulars that  a draft  scheme shall  contain in addition to the particulars specified in 95 section 25  of the  Act. Clause  (v) of  rule 17  mentions a "redistribution and  valuation statement in Form ’B’ showing the estimated  amounts to  be paid  to, or  by, each  of the owners included  in the  scheme". Form B makes it clear that the increment  is the  difference in value of the same final plot in  its developed  and undeveloped  conditions; Form  B keeps the  valuation of the original plot distinct from that of the  final plot.  The appellant’s  case therefore  cannot fall under clause (viii).      Does the  case fall  under clause  (xiii)? Under clause (xiii) the Town Planning Officer is required to estimate the compensation to  be paid  to the  owner of  any property  or right injuriously  affected by the making of a town planning scheme in  accordance with  the provisions  of  section  69. Section 69  states that  the owner  of any property or right which is  injuriously affected  by  the  making  of  a  town planning scheme  shall be  entitled to  obtain  compensation from the  local authority  or from  any person  benefited or partly from  the local authority and partly from such person as the  Town Planning Officer may in each case determine. It seems  obvious   that  the   property  or   right  which  is injuriously affected by the making of a town planning scheme is a  property or  right other  than that  acquired for  the purposes of  the scheme.  The  property  or  right  affected remains with  the owner  who is entitled to compensation for such injurious  affection. When under the Act a plot of land is taken  for the  purposes of  a town  planning scheme,  it cannot  be   suggested  that   land  itself  is  injuriously affected; such  a view  is unsupportable both as a matter of language and  having regard  to the  scheme of  the Act.  On behalf of  the appellant  it was  urged that  clause  (xiii) would cover  the case of the appellant if only we read a few words in  that clause  and that  we should  do so  to  avoid injustice being done to the appellant and the owners of land similarly situated.  That we  are afraid is not possible. We find no compelling reason for restructuring that clause, and taking acquisition  of land to mean ’injurious affection’ of the land  acquired would  be inconsistent  with  the  entire scheme of  the Act.  We may  refer to  clause ’fourthly’  of section 23  (1) of  the land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

requires the court to take into consideration in determining the amount  of compensation  to be awarded for land acquired under  that   Act,  the  damage  sustained  by  the  "person interested"  "by   reason  of  the  acquisition  injuriously affecting  his   other  property".  The  expression  "person interested" as  defined in section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act means  all persons  claiming an interest in compensation to be  made on account of the acquisition of land under that Act. It is made clear in clause 96 ’fourthly’ that  the damage  is for  injurious affection  of some property  other than  the land  acquired. The  sense in which  the  expression  ’injurious  affection’  is  used  in section 23  (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is the generally accepted meaning  of that  expression and we find nothing in the Act  concerned in this case that suggests that it should be construed differently.      It was  then argued  that if  neither clause (viii) nor clause (xiii)  was applicable,  then there  was no clause in section 32  (1) of the Act that covers the appellant’s case. The contention is not correct. The owner of an original plot who is not provided with a plot in the final scheme gets his right to  compensation from section 71 of the Act which says that the  net amount of loss shall be payable to him by "the local authority  in cash  or in  such other  way as  may  be agreed upon  by the  parties". The principle for determining the compensation  is the  same whether  an owner  of land is given a  reconstituted plot  or not; compensation is payable on the  basis of the market value of the plot at the date of declaration of  the intention  to  make  a  scheme.  In  the appellant’s case  it would be the value of the original plot and not  the  final  plot.  In  determining  the  difference between the  total of  the values  of the original plots and the total  of the  values of the plots included in the final scheme, the Town Planning Officer under section 32 (1) (iii) has to  find out  the market  value of  each of the original plots at  the date of the declaration of intention to make a scheme as  provided in  section 64  (1) (f).  Thus  the  Act contains  the   necessary  provisions   for  estimating  the compensation payable  to an  owner of  land who has not been given a reconstituted plot.      We therefore  hold that  the High  Court was  right  in finding that  the decision  of  the  Town  Planning  Officer determining the  amount of  compensation in  the appellant’s case was  not appealable.  In the  view we take, Mr. Nariman should  be  allowed  to  urge  the  grounds  concerning  the constitutional validity  of the  Act. This  case may  now be placed  before   a  Constitution   Bench  for   hearing.  An application has  been filed  on behalf  of the appellant for leave to  urge additional grounds; this application may also be considered  by the Constitution Bench that will hear this appeal. P.B.R.                                     Appeal dismissed. 97