Holding

The State Government could not lawfully sanction the corporation's 1976 plan; the final development plan is the one sanctioned on 2 November 1987, and the ten‑year period starts from 3 December 1987.

Summary

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation submitted a revised development plan under the Bombay Town Planning Act in January 1976. The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 came into force on 30 January 1978, repealing the Bombay Act and establishing the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) with power to prepare a draft development plan, which it did on 23 July 1981 covering the same area. The State Government later sanctioned the corporation's 1976 plan on 12 August 1983 and AUDA's plan on 2 November 1987. The petitioners argued that the ten‑year period for land acquisition under Section 20 of the Gujarat Act should start from the 1983 sanction, while AUDA contended that the 1983 sanction was ultra vires and that the 1987 sanction constituted the final development plan, making the ten‑year period start from 3 December 1987. The Court held that the Gujarat Act’s provisions are inconsistent with the Bombay Act, so after its commencement the State could not sanction the corporation’s plan; Section 124(2) did not save it. Consequently, the 1987 AUDA plan is the final development plan and the ten‑year period is computed from its coming into force. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order and dismissing the writ petitions.

Issues considered

The validity of the State Government's sanction of the 1976 municipal corporation plan under the Gujarat Town Planning Act.
Whether Section 124(2) of the Gujarat Act saves the corporation's plan despite the repeal of the Bombay Act.
Which sanction constitutes the final development plan for the purpose of Section 20(2) and when the ten‑year period begins.

Legislation cited

Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976s. 10, s. 12, s. 124, s. 13, s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 20, s. 9
Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Subjects

urban planningdevelopment planstatutory repealjurisdictionapplication of mindten-year periodland acquisitionadministrative lawjudicial reviewbad faithSection 124Section 20Gujarat Town Planning ActBombay Town Planning Act

Judgment

AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
v.
MANILAL GORDHANDAS AND ORS.

•
•
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996

[AM. AHMADI, CJ. N.P. SINGH AND B
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]

Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 : Sections
17(1)(c), 9 to 17, 20 and 124.
c
Town Pla1111i11g-Development Plan-Sanction of-State Govemment
accorded sa11ction to Draft Development Plan submitted by Mu11icipal Cor-
poration under Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954-Subsequently 1976 Act
came into force and repealed earlier Bombay A ct-{]rban Development
Authority submitted Development Plan to State Govemment for sanction
which covered area included in Draft Development Plan submitted by D
Municipal C01poratio11-Held : sanction of Plan submitted by Municipal
Corporation without co11sideli11g Pla11 submitted by Urban Development
Authority was without application of mind-Provisions of Bombay Act incon-
sistent with provisions of Gujarat Act-Therefore, deeming fiction in S.124(2)
would not apply and Plan submitted under repealed Act not deemed to be E
submitted u11der Gujarat Act-Final development pla11 i11 respect of area ....
withi11 C01poration came into force on date of sam;tio11 of draft developme11t
plan submitted under Gujarat Act-Hence, pe1iod of 10 years mentioned liz
S.20(2) must be computed from that date-Bombay Town Pla11ning Act,
1954.
F
Administrative Law :

Judicial review-Mala fide excercise of power--Held: It must be shown
that power was excercised with ulte1ior motive only to defeat statutory rights
of perso11s biterested. G
The Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 regulated the town planning
activity within the area falling within the jurisdiction of the local authority
in the State including the Municipal Corporation. On 15.1.1976 the Cor-
poration submitted a revised development plan for tbe area falling within
the limits of the Corporation to the State Government for its sanction. On H
79
80 SUPREME COURTREPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 19.6.1976 the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act was
enacted which came into force on 30.1.1978. On that very date Ahmedabad
Urban Development Authority (AUDA) was constituted under Section 22
of the said Act. Section 124(1) of the said Act repealed the Bombay Town
Planning Act, 1954.

B By a notification dated 12.8.1983 the State Government sanctioned
the revised development plan submitted on 15.1.1976 by the Corporation
under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. AUDA prepared a draft
development plan in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Town
Planning Act and submitted to the State Government for sanction on
C 23-7-1981. It also included the area covered by the Corporation. The State
Government sanctioned the draft development plan submitted on 23.7.1981
by the appellant AUDA on 2.11.1987 including for the areas within the
Corporation in respect of which the draft development had been sanc-
tioned by the State Government by aforesaid notification dated 12.8.1983.

D According to the writ petitioners respondents, as the draft develop-
ment plan which had been submitted. on 15.1.1976 and sanctioned on
12.8.1983 by a notification saying that the sanction plan would come into
force with effect from 16.9.1983, the period of 10 years as specified in
Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning Act would have to be counted
E with effect from 16.9.1983 so far as the area covered by notification dated
12.8.1983 was concerned. They claimed that within the aforesaid period of
10 years from coming into force of the final development plan neither t~e
lands in question covered by that notification were acquired by agreement
nor any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were com-
menced. Thereafter, they issued notices and on expiry of the period of six
F months from the date of service of such notices it was claimed on their
behalf that the designation of the land had lapsed. This found favour with
the High Court. Being aggrieved the appellant-ADDA preferred the present
appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
G
HELD : 1.1. The State Government could not have sanctioned the
draft development plan submitted by the Municipal Corporation on
12.8.1983 because the Gujarat Town Planning Urban Development Act, .
1976 had come into force on 30.1.1978, and Section 124(2) of the Gujarat
H Town Planning Act shall not save the plan submitted by the Corporation,
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEV. AlJTHORITY v. MANUAL GORDHANDAS 81

provisions of Sections 9 to 17 of Gujarat Town Planning Act being incon- A
sistent with Sections 7 to 10 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. The
· State Government after coming int(, force of the Gujarat Town Planning
Act should have ignored the draft development plan submitted by the
Corporation on 15.1.1976. This was also necessary because a special Act,
Gujarat Town Planning Act had been enacted on 19.6.1976 with the sole B
object to develop the urban area of the State in accordance with the
provisions of the said Act. [98-G-H; 99-A-B]

1.2. From a mere comparison of the relevant Sections under the
Bombay To"11 Planning Act, 1954 with the provisions of the Gujarat Town
Planning Act it shall appear that the relevant provisions of the Gujarat C
Town Planning Act are inconsistent with the provisions of Bombay Town
Planning Act. Provisions of Sections 7 to 10 of Bombay Town Planning Act
are inconsistent with Sections 9 to 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act.
As such after coming into force of Gujarat Town Planning Act on 30.1.1978
State Government was required to follow provisions of Sections 9 to 17 of D
the Gujarat Town Planning Act. Section 124(2) of Gujarat Town Planning
Act was of no help when the plan submitted by Corporation was sanctioned
on 12.8.1983. That could have been done if the provisions of the Gujarat
Town Planning Act had been consistent with the provisions of Bombay
Town Planning Act. [94-G; 95-E]
E
1.3. There was a complete lack of application of ~ind on the part of
the State Government when the draft development plan submitted on
15.1.1976 by the Corporation was sanctioned under the provisions of the
Gujarat Town Planning Act on 12.8.1983, overlooking the fact that in the
meantime a comprehensive draft development plan had been prepared by F
the appellant and had been submitted on 23.7.1981 for sanction of the State
Government. When Section 17(1) vests power in the State Government to
sanction the draft development plan, the said statutory power should not
be exercised in a casual manner without proper application of mind. The
facts of the present case clearly depict how the State Government has
exercised the power under Section 17(l)(c) of the Gujarat Town planning G
Act without proper application of mind. It appears the notification dated
12.8.1983 has· been issued being completely oblivious and ignorant of the
submission of a draft development plan by the appellant in the meantime
on 23.7.1981 covering those areas also. If the State Government was
conscious of the fact that later a more comprehensive draft development . H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A plan had been submitted by the appellant, there was no reason to sanction
the draft development plan submitted by the Corporation which had lost .
jurisdiction over ·the area for which the draft development plan had been
prepared. (93-G-H; 94-A~E)

2.l. The State Government. should not have Qiken note of the plan -~
B •
submitted on 15.1.1976 by the Corporation after the repeal of the Bombay
Town Planning Act on 30.1.1978 and coming into .force of the new Gujarat
Town Planning Act. There was no occasion to ignore the comprehensive
plan submitted by AUDA vested With the power to submit such plan and
to sanction the draft plan submitted by the Corporation. After coming into
C force of the Gujarat Town, Planning Act on 30.1.1978 the State Government
could not have sanctioned a plan submitted by the Corporation when the
AUDA had already submitted a draft development plan even <:overing
those areas under the Gujarat Town Planning Act. (96-B-D]

2.2. When power has been vested in the appellant to prepare a draft
D
developnient plan and there being no bar to include in the said draft
development plan even area for which an earlier draft development plan
had already been sanctioned, then the draft development plan which was
sanctioned and notified on 2.11.1987 shall be deemed to be the final
development plan within the meaning of Section 20 of the Gujarat Town
E Planning Act. As such the period of 10 years has to be calculated and
counted With reference to 3.12.1987 the date when such final development
plan was to come into force. (97-D-E)

3. The possibility of misuse of such power does not arise because if
p such power is exercised With ulter~or motive and With an object to defeat
the statutory right of persons interested, courts Will be perfectly justified
in nullifying such actions of area development authorities. But in the
present case the draft development plan had been submitted by the appel-
lant as early as on 23.7.1981 much before the draft development plan
submitted by the Corporation was sanctioned on 12.8.1983. There is no
G scope for attributing any bad faith or malice on the part of the appellant
or the State Government in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. The writ petitioners - respondents did not take such a stand that the
State Government approved the draft development plan submitted by the
appellant ·on 2.11.1987 only to defeat the right which was to accrue to the
H · land owners or persons interested in the next few years. (98-A-C]
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEV. AUlHORITY v. MANILALGORDHANDAS (N.P. SINGH, J.) '83

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11935- A
11943 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.95 of the Gujarat High
Court in L.P.A. No. ~96, 300, 301-02, 299, 294"95, 297 and 298 of 1995.

S.N. Shelat, Additipnal Advocate General, Gujarat, S.K. Dholakia, B
Soli J. Sorabjee, Anil B. Divan, Ashok H. Desai, S.H. Sanjanwala, Harish
N. Salve, P.S. Poti and R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Advs., V.K. Bhatt, D.S. Nanavati,
A.K. Agarwal, A. Chinnasamy, Y. Adhyaru, Ms. Alka Agarwal, V.D.
Khanna, Mrs. Nirmala Gupta, H.S. parihar, Kuldeep S. Parihar, P.H.
Parekh, E.R. Kumar, G.E. Desai, C.G. Sharma, Sandeep Parekh, A.J. c
Patel, C. Patel, S. Parekh, H. D. Raval, Anip Sachthey, C.D. Singh, N.N.
Munshi, A.P. Medh, A. Mehrotra, A. K. Pandey, C.C. Bhalja, A.K. Pandey,
A. Mehrotra, C.C. Bhalja, Ms. Tanuja Sheel and Ms .. Reema Bhandari for
the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D

N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.

These appeals have been filed on behalf of the Ahmedabad Urban
Development Authority for setting aside the order passed by the High E
Court of Gujarat dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals filed on behalf of
the appellants, against the judgment of the single Judge of the said High
Court in different writ petitions. The writ petitions had been allowed saying
that the sanction accorded by the Notification dated 12.8.1983, by the State
of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred 011 it by clause (c) of sub-section
(1) of Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development F
Act, 1976 had lapsed after the expiry of period of 10 years and because of
service of notice by the concerned land owners in accordance with sub-sec-
tion (2) of Section 20 of the said Act, as during this period neither the
lands in question were acquired by agreement nor proceedings under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were cbmmenced.
G
The Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 regulated the town planning
activity within the area falling within the jurisdiction of the local authorities
in the State of Gujarat including the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"). On 15.1.1976 the Corpora-
tion submitted a revised development plan to the State Government for the H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A area falling within the limits of the Corporation for sanction of the State
Government. Section 7 of the Bombay Town Planning Act provides that
the details of the proposals for designating the use of the land for the
purposes such as (1) residential (2) industrial (3) commercial and (4)
agricultural as well as proposals regarding designation of and for public
purposes such as parks, play-grounds, recreation grounds, open spaces,
B schools, markets and for institutions should be indicated in the develop-
ment plan. Section 8 prescribes, the particulars which have to be submitted
to the State Government along with the development plan. In view of
Section 9 within 2 months from the date of publication of the aforesaid ·
development plan any member of the public has a right to communicate in
c writing to the local authority any suggestion relating to such plan which has
to be considered at any time before submitting the development plan to
the State Government. On receipt of the development plan under Section
8, the State Government under Section 10 can sanction such development
plan including with modifications if any. Such sanction shall be notified in
D official gazette and thereafter the development plan so sanctioned shall be
called "the final development plan" which shall come into force on such
date as the State Government may specify in the notification issued. The
Corporation submitted the development plan to the State Government for
sanction on 15.1.1976. On 19.6.1976 the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban
Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Gujarat Town
E Planning Act) was enacted, which came in force on 30.1.1978 and the
Bombay Town Planning Act was repealed since that date. On 30.1.1978
itself in exercise of the power under Section 22, the Ahmedabad Urban
development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the AUDA) was con-
stituted and the power to prepare development plan in respect of even the
F areas which were the part and parcel of the Corporation vested in AUDA
since that date.

The preamble of the Gujarat Town Planning Act says "an Act to
consolidate and amend the law relating to the making and execution of
development plans and town planning schemes in the State of Gujarat".
G Section 7 specifies the functions of the development authority which in-
cludes to undertake the preparation of development plans under the
provisions of the. said Act for the development area and to undertake the
preparation of town planning schemes under the provisions of the said Act;
to control the development activities. Section 9 provides that as soon as
H may be after the constitution of an area development authority as in the
AHMEDABADURBANDEV.AUIBORITY v.MANILALGORDHANDAS(N.P.SINGH,J.) 85

present case AUDA, for any development area such authority shall not A
later than three years after the declaration of such area as a development
area or within such time as the State Government may, from time to time
extend "prepare and submit to the State Government a draft development
plan for the whole or any part of the development area" in accordance with
the provisions of the said Act. In view of Section 10 of that Act a copy of
B
the draft development plan as prepared under Section 9 in respect of any
area has to be kept open for inspection by the public. Section 12 requires
such draft development plan to indicate the manner in which the use of
the lands in the area covered by it shall be regulated and shall also indicate
the manner in which the development therein shall be carried out. The
relevant portion of sub-section (2) of Section 12 is as follows : c

-
"12(2) In particular, it shall provide, so far as may be necessary,
for all or any of the following matters, namely :

(a) proposals for designating the use of the land for residential,
industrial, co~mercial, agricultural and recreational purpose; D

(b) proposals for the reservation of land for public purposes,
such as schools, colleges and other educational institutions, medi-
cal and public health institutions, markets, social welfare and
cultural institutions, theatres and places for public entertainment, E
public assembly, museums, art galleries, religious buildings, play-
grounds, stadia, open spaces, dairies and for such _other purposes
as may, from time to time, be specified by the State Government;

(c) ............................................................... ..
F
( d) transport and communications, such as roads, highways,
parkways, railways, waterways, canals and airport, including their
extension and development;

(e) ............................................................... ..
G
(t) ·································································
(g) ................................................................ .

(h) ................................................................. H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996]SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A (i) .......................................... ,..................... .

G) ·································································
(k) proposals for the reservation of land for the purpose of
Union, any State, local authority or any other authority or body
B established by or under· any law for the time being in force;

(1) ................................................................ .

(m) ................................................................. .

c (n) provision for preventing or removing pollution of water or
air caused by the discharge of waste or other means as a result of
the use of land;

(o) ................................................................. "

D Because of Section 13 such authority after "the draft development
plan is prepared and submitted to the State Government under Section 9",
shall publish it in the official gazette and in such other manner as may be
prescribed along with a notice in a prescribed manner inviting suggestions
or objections from any person with respect to the development plan within
a period of two months from the date of its publication. Sub-section (2) of
E Section 13 prescribes the particulars which have to be published alongwith
the draft development plan. Objections or suggestions communicated in
writing within the period specified has to be considered and· if necessary
the draft development plan may be modified. If the modifications made by
the authority in the draft development ptan are of extensive or substantial
F nature the said authority has to publish the said modifications in the official
gazette along with the notice in prescribed manner inviting suggestions or
objections from any person with respect to the proposed modifications
within a period of two months from the date of publication of the said
notice, which is required by Section 15. Section 16 provides that after the
development plan is published as aforesaid and the objections or sugges- .,
G tions thereto, if any, are received, the authority shall within a period of six
months from the date of the publication of the draft development plan
under Section 13 "submit to the State Government for its sanction the draft
development plan and the regulations with the modifications, if any, made
thereof under Sections 14 or 15". The particulars published under sub-sec-
H tion (2) of Section 13 and the suggestions or objections received under
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEV. AUIBORITY v. MANIJ.ALGORDHANDAS [N.P.SINGii,J:) 87

Sections 14 or 15 have also to be submitted to the State Government along A
with the draft development plan because of sub- section (2) of Section 16.
Section 17(1) which is relevant for the pr.esent case is as follows :

"17.(l)(a) On receipt of the draft development plan under
section 16, the State Government may, by notification, -
B
(i) sanction the draft development plan and the regulations so
received, within the prescribed period, for the whole of the area
covered by the plan or separately for any part thereof, either
without modifications, or subject to such modifications, as it may
consider proper; or c
(ii) return the draft development plan and the regulations to
the area development authority or, as the .case may be, to the
authorised officer, for modifying the plan and the regulations in
s~ch manner as it may direct.
D
· Provided that, where the State Government is of opinion that
substantial modifications in the draft development plan and regula-
tions are necesary, the State Government may, instead of returning
them to the area development authority or, as the case may be,
the authorised officer under this sub-clause, publish the modifica-
E
tions so considered necesary in the Official Gazette alongwith a
notice in the prescribed manner inviting suggestions or objections
from any person with respect to' the proposed modifications within
a period of two months from the date of publication of such notice;
or
F
(iii) refuse to accord sanction to the draft development plan·
and the regulations and direct the area development authority or
the authorised Officer to prepare a fresh development plan under
the provisions of this Act.

(b) Where a development plan and regulations are returned to G
an area development authority, or, as the· case may be, the
authorised. officer under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the .area
development authority, or, as the case may be, the authorised·
officer, shall carry out the modifications therein as directed by the
State 'Government and then submit them as so modified to the · H ·
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l 1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A State Government for sanction; and the State Government shall
thereupon sanction them after satisfying itself that the modifica-
tions suggested have been duly carried out therein.

(c) Where the State Government has published the modifica-
tions considered necessary in a draft development plan as required
B under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the State Govern-
ment shall, before according sanction to the draft development
plan and the regulations, take into consideration the suggestions
or objections that may have been recieved thereto, and thereafter
accord sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations
c in such modified form as it may consider fit.

(d) The sanction accorded under clause (b) or clause (c) shall
be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette and
the draft development plan together with the regulations so sanc-
tioned shall be called the final development plan.
D
(e) The final development plan shall come into force on such
date as the State Government may specify in the notification issued
under clause ( d) :

Provided that the date so specified shall not be earlier than one
E month from the date of publication of such notification .

.The State Government under the aforesaid sub-section (1) of .section 17,
may sanction the draft development plan forwarded by development
authority either without modifications or subject to such modifications.
Section 20 provides :
F
"20.(1) The area development authority or any other authority
for whose purpose land is designated in the final development plan
for any purpose specified in clause (b ), clause (d), clause (k) or
clause (n) of sub-section (2) of section 12, may acquire the land
either by agreement or under the provisions of the Land Acquisi-
G
tion Act, 1894.

(2) If the land referred to in sub-section (1) is not acquired by
agreement within a period of ten years from the date of the corning
into force of the final development plan or if proceedings under
H the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not commenced within such
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEV. AUIBORITY v. MANilALGORDHANDAS [N.P. SINGH, J.) 89

period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve A
a notice on the authority concerned requiring it to acquire the land
and if within six months from the date of service of such notice
the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced for its
acquisition, the designation of the land as aforesaid shall be
deemed to have lapsed.
B
On a plain reading, sub-section (1) of Section 20 requires the area develop-
ment authority for whose purpose land is designated in the final develop-
ment plan for any purpose specified in clauses (b), (d), (k) or clause (n)
of sub-section (2) of Section 12 to acquire the land either by agreement or
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. If such land is not C
acquired by agreement within the period of 10 years from the date of the
"coming into force of the final development plan" or if the proceedings
under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period,
the owner or any person interested in the land may serve a notice on the
authority concerned requiring it to acquire the land. If within period of six D
months from the date of the service of the notice the land is not acquired
or no steps are taken for its acquisition, the designation of the land as
aforesaid shall be deemed to have lapsed.

Sub-section (1) of Section 124 repeals the Bombay Town Planning
Act, 1954 but because of sub-section (2) of the said Section 124 not- E
withstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken, including any
declaration of intent.ion to make a development plan or town planning
scheme, any draft development plan or draft town planning scheme pub-
lished by a local authority, any application made to the State Government
for the sanction of any draft development plan or draft town planning
scheme, any, sanction given by the State Government to the draft develop- F
ment plan or draft town planning scheme shall in so far as it is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act shall have
effect in relation thereto.

(emphasis supplied) G

As already mentioned above on 15.1.1976 the Corporation under the
provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 had submitted a revised
development plan to the State Government for the area falling within the
limits of the Corporation for sanction of the State Government. But on
19.6.1976, the Gujarat Town planning Act was enacted which came into H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A force with effect from 30.1.1978. On that very date AUDA was constituted
under Section 22 of the said Act. Because of sub-section (1) of SectiOn 124
it shall be deemed that the Bombay Town Planning Act was repealed with
effect from 30.1.1978, when the Gujarat Town Planning Act came into
force. Section 9 required AUDA to prepare and submit to the State
Government a draft development plan within three years from the decla-
B ration of the areas as development areas. A draft development plan was
prepared by AUDA for the entire area under its jurisdiction which in-
cluded the area covered by the Corporation and was submitted to the State
Government for its sanction on 23.7.1981.

c saying:On 12.8.1983 a notificatio~ ,.was issued by the State Government
"WHEREAS the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "the said Municipal Corporation) has
prepared a "Draft Revised Development Plan (hereinafter referred
to as the said" Draft Revised Development Plan") in respect of the
D
lands within the jurisdiction of the said Municipal Corporation
under the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and
advertisement regarding publication of the said draft revised
Development Plan and calling; objections and suggestions in the
said draft revised development plan was published in the Part II
E of the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 15th January, 1976;
I

AND WHEREAS the government of Gujarat had considered
it necessary to make modifications (hereinafter referred to as "the
said modifications") in the said draft revised Development Plan
which was submitted by the said Municipal Corporation to the
F State Government for sanction under the provisions of the Gujarat
Town Planing and Urban Development Act, 1976;

NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by
G clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Gujarat Town
Planning and Urban Development· Act, 1976, the Government of
Gujarat hereby;

(a) finalises the said modifications;

H (b) sanctions the said draft revised development plan and the
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY v. MANll.ALGORDHANDAS [N.P. SINGH,J.j 91

regulations thereto subject to the modifications so finalised and as A
set out in the schedule appended hereto; and

(c) specifies the 16th September, 1983 as the date on which the
final development plan shall come into force."

From the aforesaid notification itself it is apparent that the State Govern- B
. ment purported to sanction the draft revised development plan submitted
on 15.1.1976 by the Corporation under the provisions of the Bombay Town
Planning Act and State Government specified 16.9.1983 as the date on
which the said final development plan shall come into force.

There is no dispute that when AUDA prepared a draft development c
plan in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act
and submitted to the State Government for sanction on 23.7.1981 it also
included the area and the draft plan with modifications already submitted
by the Corporation on 15.1.1976. It is the case of the AUDA that it was
considered necessary to include even that area in the draft development D
plan prepared by the appellant, because by that time the draft development
plan which had been submitted by the Corporation had not been sanc-
tioned by the State Government. The State Government sanctioned the
draft development plan submitted on 23.7.1981 by the appellant AUDA on
2.11.1987 including for the areas within the Corporation in respect of which E
the draft development had been sanctioned by the State Government by
aforesaid notification dated 12.8.1983.

According to the writ petitioners-respondents, as the draft develop-
ment plan which had been submitted on 15.1.1976 and sanctioned on
12.8.1983 by a notification saying that the sanction plan shall come into F
force with effect from 16.9.1983, the period of 10 years as specified in
sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act shall have
to be counted with effect from 16.9.1983 so far the area covered by
notification dated 12.8.1983 is concerned. They claimed that within the
aforesaid period ,of 10 years from coming into force of the final develop- G
ment plan neither the lands in question covered by that notification were
acquired by agreement nor any proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act were commenced. Thereafter, they issued notices and on expiry of the
period of six months from the date of seryice of such notices it was claimed
on their behalf that the designation of the land had lapsed. This has found
favour with the High Court which has been questioned before this Court. H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A It may be pointed out that although the aforesaid notification dated
12.8.1983 was issued under the provisions of Clause (c) sub-section (1) of
Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act, admittedly the said draft
plan had neither been prepared in accordance with the provi;ions of
Gujarat Town Planning Act nor submitted by AUDA the appellant. In the
B notification itself it has been specifically mentioned that the Corporation
had prepared the said draft revised development plan under the provisions
of the Bombay Town Planning Act and submitted the same to the State
Government on 15.1.1976. It has been further said that the State Govern-
ment had considered it necessary to make modifications in the said draft
revised development plan which was submitted by the Corporation to the
c State Government and thereafter sanction was being accorded. We are not
able to appreciate as to why and how the draft revised development plan
which had been submitted by the Corporation on 15.1.1976 was sanctioned
and notified on 12.8.1983, when in the meantime the Gujarat Town Plan-
ning Act had come into force with effect from 30.1.1978 which had juris-
D diction even over the area in respect of which the Corporation had
submitted the draft development plan on 15.1.1976. Apart from that before
the aforesaid notification dated 12.8.1983 was issued, the appellant had
submitted its draft development plan prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act to the State Government for
E sanction, covering even the area which had been included in the draft
development plan submitted by the Corporation on 15.1.1976 along with
the much larger area for which th~ draft development plan was prepared
by the appellant. In normal course, the State Government should not have
taken note of the draft development plan submitted by the Corporation on
15.1.1976 which remained pending before the State Government and in the
F meantime the Gujarat Town Planning Act came into force and a more
comprehensive draft development plan prepared by the appellant had been
submitted to the State Government covering even the· area for which the
Corporation had submitted a draft developmenf plan. On behalf of the
respondents it was pointed out that when the appellant had submitted the
G draft development plan on 23.7.1981 including the area for which the draft
development plan had been submitted by the Corporation, it was open to
the State Government to sanction the draft development plan only in part,
covering the area for which the draft development plan had been submitted
earlier, while exercising power under Section 17(1)(a)(i) which says that
H the State Government may by notification sanction the draft development
AHMEDABAD URBAN DFV. AUlHORITY v. MANII.ALGORDHANDAS [N.P. SINGH, J.) 93

plan for the "whole area covered by the plan or separately for any part A
thereof'. This argument could have been accepted if in the notification
dated 12.8.1983 the State Government had referred to the draft develop-
ment plan submitted by the appellant on 23.7.1981 and had specifically said
that it was sanctioning only part of the said plan by that notification. In the
notification dated 12.8.1983, no notice has been taken of the draft develop- B
ment plan submitted by the appellant on 23.7.1981, covering even the areas
in respect whereof the draft development plan had been prepared by the
Corporation. As such it is a futile contention that by notification dated
...~
12.8.1983 part of the draft development plan submitted by the appellant on
23.7.1981 had been sanctioned by the State Government in exercise of the
powers under Section 17(1)(a)(i).
c
_,(
I
It was then submitted that as the draft development plan had been
submitted by the Corporation to the State Government before the Bombay
Town Planning Act stood repealed on coming into force of the Gujarat
Town Planning Act on 30.1.1978, because of sub- section (2) of Section 124 D
aforesaid it was open to the State Government to sanction that plan. On
proper reading of sub- section (2) it appears, that it shall be deemed that
the said draft ·development plan was pending before the State Government
because of sub~section (2) of Section 124. There is a deeming fiction in
sub-section (2) of Section 124 saying that any application made to the State E
Government for sanction of any draft development plan shall "be deemed
to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this
Act". It shall only keep the draft development plan submitted by the
Corporation pending for consideration by the State Government because
it shall be deemed that it has been submitted to the State Government
under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act. But before
F

- sanctioning the said plan the State Government was required to examine
the said draft development plan along with the draft development plan
prepared and submitted by the appellant AUDA in the meantime. It can
be said that there was complete lack of application of mind on the part of
the State Government when the draft development plan submitted on G
15.1.1976 by the Corporation was sanctioned under the provisions of the
Gujarat Town Planning Act on 12.8.1983, overlooking the fact that in the
meantime a comprehensive draft development plan had been prepared by
,, the appellant and had been submitted on 23.7.1981 for sanction of the State
Government. When Secrion 17(1) vests power in the State Government to H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A sanction the draft development Plan, the said statutory Power should not
be exercised in a casual manner without proper application of mind. The
fac~s of the present case clearly depict how the State Government has
exercised the power under Section 17(1)(c) of the Gujarat Town planning
Act without proper application of mind. It appears the notification dated
B 12.8.1983 has been issued being completely oblivi.:ius and ignorant of the
submission of a draft development plan. by the appellant in the meantime
on 23.7.1981 covering those areas also. lnspite of repeated queries from
the counsel who appeared for the writ petitioner-responc!ents, they could
not explain as to how while sanctioning the draft development plan sub-
C mitted on 15.1.76 by the Corporation, there is no mention in the notification
in question about the submission of a draft development plan by the
appellant covering those very areas. Why the State Government was
sanctioning the plan submitted on 15.1.1976 ignoring the more comprehen-
sive and detailed draft developmeat plan for a· much larger area including
the area for which the draft development plan had been submitted on
D 15.1.1976 by the Corporation? If the State Government was conscious of
the fact that later a more comprehensive draft development plan had been
submitted by the appellant, there was no reason to sanction the · draft
development plan submitted by the Corporation which had lost jurisdiction
over the area for which the draft development plan had been prepared.
E The draft development plan submitted by the Corporation had been sanc-
tioned on 12.8.1983 without proper application of mind is obvious from the
fact that admittedly later the State Government on 2.11.1987 sanctioned by
notification issued under Section 17(1)(i)(c) of the Gujarat Town planning
Act,. the draft development plan submitted by the appellant on 23.7.1981
F including the area for which the draft development plan had been sub-
mitted by the Corporation on 15.1.1976.

Apart from that from a mere compadson of the relevant Sections
under the Bombay Town Planning Act with the provisions of the Gujarat
G Town Planning Act it shall appear that the relevant provisions of the
Gujarat Town Planning Act are inconsistent with the provisions of Bom-
bay Town Planning Act. Section 12 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act
>-
covers a much wider field of the development and the object for develop-
ment is not as limited as Section 7 of the Bombay Town Planning Act.
·•
H Section 12 takes note of the factors and objects for which provisions have
t0 be made in the draft development plan. Keeping in view the modern
AHMEDABADURBANDEV.AUTIIORITY v.MANII.ALGORDHANDAS(N.P.SINGH,J.) 95

requirements for an urban development provisions have been made for A
zoological gardens, green belts, natural reserves sanctuaries, railways,
waterways canals, airport, water supply, drainage, sewage disposal, public
utility amenities including supply of electricity and gas. It also contemplates
preservation, conservation and development of natural scenery and
landscape, places of historical, architectural interest. It provides for con- B
trolling and regulating the use and development of land within the
developed area including imposition conditions and restrictions in regard
to the open space to be maintained for buildings, the percentage of
building area for a plot, the location, number, size, height, number of
storeys, parking spaces etc. It conceives provision for preventing or remov-
ing pollution of water or air caused by discharge of waste or other means
c
as a result of the use of land. All this was not in Section 7 of the Bombay
Town Planning Act prescribing the contents of the development plan.
Similarly, the procedure prescribed for sanction of a draft development
plan under Sections 13 to 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act are not
D
consistent with Sections 8 to 10 of Bombay Town Planning Act. It has to
be held that provisions of Sections 7 to 10 of Bombay Town Planning Act
are inconsistent with Sections 9 to 17 of .the Gujarat Town Planning Act.
As such after coming into force of Gujarat Town Planning Act on 30.1.1978
State Government was required .to follow provisions of Sections 9 to 17 of E
the Gujarat Town Planning Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 124 of Gujarat
Town Planning Act was of no help when the plan submitted by Corporation
was sanctioned on 12.8.1983. That could have been done if the provisions
of the Gujarat Town Planning Act had been consistent with the provisions
of Bombay Town Planning Act. Sub- section (2) of Section 124 says :
F
"Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken
(including any declaration of intention to make a development plan
or town planning scheme, any draft development plan or draft town
planning scheme published by a local authority, any application
made to the State Government for the Sanction of any draft
development plan or draft town planning scheme, any, sanction G
It
given by the State Government to the draft development plan...... .

shall, in so far as it is not in consistent with the provisions of this
Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the correspond-
ing provisions, of this Act, and the provisions of this Act shall have H
t-

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A effect in relation thereto."

(emphasis supplied)

Provisions and procedures under Sections 7 to 10 of the Bombay Town
Planning Act are different from the provisions and procedures in respect
B of preparation of a development plan under the Gujarat Town Planning
Act. In this background the State Government should not have taken note
of the Plan submitted on 15.1.1976 by the Corporation after the repeal of
the Bombay Town Planning Act on 30.1.1978 and coming in force of the
new Gujarat Town Planning Act. There was no occasion to ignore the
C comprehensive plan submitted by AUDA vested with the power to submit
such plan and to sanction the draft plan submitted by the Corporation.
According to us, after coming into force of the Gujarat Town Planning Act
on 31.1.1978 State Government could not have sanctioned a plan submitted
by the Corporation when the AUDA had already submitted a draft
D development plan even covering those areas under the Gujarat Town
Planning Act.

To prepare a scheme for the development of an urban agglomeration
in the present days is a very complex issue and any development authority
E as well as the State Go\-ernment which is· the sanctioning authority has to
apply its mind on the details of such development plans. During the last
few decades an urban development has assumed unprecedented impor-
tance because of the population migration from rural areas to urban areas
and cry for a roof and fresh air. In such urban areas the orderly growth of
the cities has to be enforced through proper development plans. For every
F city as was done in Ahmedabad in the present case, development
authorities have been constituted who can prepare comprehensive develop-
ment plans keeping not only the present requirement but even the require-
ments for the 21st century in view. If the development in such areas are
not carried on the well known principle, most of.the cities will be converted
G into slums sooner or later. There was a time when a ci~y meant only
residential area and commercial complex including industrial centres. But
the whole concept has changed. While planning an urban area not only the
residential, institutional, industrial and commercial, aspects have to be seen
but also provisions have to be made in respect of zoological gardens, green
H belts, natural reserves, sanctuaries, highways, parkways, Waterways, airport,
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEV. AUTIIORITY v. MANII.ALGORDfL\NDAS [N.P. SINGH,J.) 97

···drainage, sewage disposal. The development authority has also to reserve · A
land for community facilities and services and for prevention of pollution
of water or air caused by the discharge of waste or other means as a result
of the use of land. From a bare reference to sub-section (2) of Section 12
.. · it shall appear that framers of the Gujarat Town Planning Act have
conceived the new requirements for a proper development of an urban B
area.

As in the present case the only question which is to be answered is
as to with effect from which date 10 years period shall be counted, it has
to be decided as to which date shall be deemed to be the date of coming
into force of the final development plan, so far the area within the Cor- C
poration is concerned. The notification dated 2.11.1987 had been issued by
the State Government covering the area notified on 12.8.1983 several years
before the issuance of notices by the writ petitioners. The notification dated
2.11.1987 was neither questioned by the writ petitioners-respondents nor
could have been questioned, according to us. When p9wer has been vested D
in the appellant to prepare a draft development plan and there being no
bar to include in the said draft development plan even area for which an
earlier draft development plan had already been sanctioned, then the draft
development plan which was sanctioned and notified on 2.11.1987 shall be
deemed to be the final development plan within the meaning of Section 20 E
of the Gujarat Town Planning Act. As such the period of 10 years has to
be calcu.lated and counted with reference to 3.12.1987 the date when su.ch
final development plan was to come into force.

On behalf of the writ petitioners it was pointed out that if it is held
that period of 10 years is to be counted with reference to 3.12.1987 then
F
the right which has been provided to the land owners or the persons
interested by sub-section (2) of Section 20 to give notice after the expiry
of the period of 10 years from coming into force of the final development
plan, can be defeated by any area development authority by notifying a
fresh draft development plan just on expiry of the final plan including fresh G
areas. In other words any area development authority on verge of the eXpiry
of the period of 10 years of a final development plan, may include that area
into another draft development plan along with other area to defeat the
right which had accrued or was likely to accrue to the land owners or the
persons interested under sub-section (2) of Section 20. If such power is H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A exercised with ulterior mo~ive and with an object to defeat the statutory
right of persons interested, courts will be perfectly justified in nullifying
such actions of area development authorities. But in the present case as
has been pointed out above the draft development plan had been submitted
by the appellant as early as on 23.7.1981 much before the draft develop-
B ment plan submitted by the Corporation was sanctioned on 12.8.1983.
There is no scope for attributing any bad faith or malice on the part of
the appellant or the State Government in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. In all fairness none of the counsel appearing for the
writ-petitioners-respondents took such a stand that the State Government
approved the draft development plan submitted by the appellant on
c 2.11.1987 only to defeat the right which was to accrue to the land owners
or persons interested in the next few years.

We are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the
respondents that the effect of the sanctions given on 12.8.1983 and
D 2.11.1987 shall be that two final development plans had come into force.
The effect of sanction given on 2.11.1987 shall be that the State Govern-
ment had sanctioned the comprehensive draft plan prepared by the appel-
lant with the area in respect of which State Government had purported to
accord sanction on 12.8.1983. The respondents could not point ou~ as to
E how this sanction of the State Government given by notification dated
2.11.1987 shall be illegal, invalid and not sanctioned by law. In the present
case the draft development plai:i was submitted on 23.7.1981 by the appel-
lant which was sanctioned on 2.11.1987. Then it shall be deemed that the
area in respect of which separate draft development plan had been sanc-
tioned on 12.8.1983 merged and became part and parcel of the scheme and
F
plan which had been submitted by the appellant AUDA on 23.7.1981 and
which was sanctioned on 2.11.1987. It will be deemed that the final plan
came in force with effect from 3.12.1987, even in respect of area which was
covered by the notification dated 12.8.1983.

G We have already held that the State Government could not have
sanctioned the draft development plan submitted by Corporation on
12.8.1983 because the Gujarat Town Planning Act had come in force on
30.1.1978 and sub-section (2) of Section 124 of the Gujarat Town Planning
Act shall not save the plan submitted by the Corporation, provisions of
H Sections 9 to 17 of Gujarat Town Planning Act being inconsistent with
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEV. AUTIIORITY v. MANIIALGORDHANDAS [N.P. SINGH, J.] 99

Section 7 to 10 of the Bombay Town Planning Act. The State Government A
after coming into force of •the Gujarat Town Planning Act should have
ignored the draft development plan submitted by the Corporation on
15.1.1976. This was also necessary because a special Act, Gujarat Town
Planning Act had been enacted on 19.6.1976 with the sole object to develop
the urban areas of the State in accQrdance with the provisions of the .said
Act.
B

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The Judgments of the High
Court are set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no
orders for costs.

v.s.s. Appeals allowed.
c