SURAT PARSI PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We now turn to fourth and fifth contentions. The fourth contention relates to the apportionment of contribution between the petitioner on one hand and its lessees on the other hand. Respondents Nos. 5 to 45 are the lessees of the petitioner. The question of paying contribution under the town planning scheme arises in respect of Final Plots Nos. 58 46 45 52 54 50 47 56 53 44 51 57 60 61 79 74 76 96 86 87 88 89 72 158 162 164 165 and 166. The Town Planning Officer has ordered the lessees to bear 2/5th of the contribution payable in respect of the aforesaid lands and the lessor the petitioner to bear 3/5th of the contribution. Now this contention was raised before the Board of Appeal. The Board of Appeal has held that it has no jurisdiction to examine this part of the order of the Town Planning Officer. The jurisdiction of the Board is governed by sec. 34 of the Act (Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 In 1971 when the appeals were filed before the Board of Appeal sec. 34 provided as follows: By decision of the Town Planning Officer under clauses (v). (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) and (xiii) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32 shall be forthwith communicated to the party concerned and any party aggrieved by any such decision may within one month from the date of the communication of the decision present an appeal to the District judge for decision of the appeal by a Board of Appeal constituted under sec. 35; and on receipt of an appeal as aforesaid the Board of Appeal shall as soon as may be be constituted as hereinafter provided and shall hear and decide the appeal. This section renders certain decisions of the Town Planning Officer appealable to the Board of Appeal. They are decisions which fall under clauses (v) (vi) (viii) (ix) (x) and (xiii) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32.

(2.) Let us now turn to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32. Mrs. Mehta has argued that the question of apportionment falls under clause (ix) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 32. It reads as follows:

(3.) Now in order to examine the rival arguments which have been raised in this behalf it is necessary to turn to sec. 66. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 66 provides as follows: