SURAT PANJRAPOLE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this Special Civil Application, the petitioner seeks to challenge the Resolution dated 9th April 1992 passed by the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation, based on an earlier Resolution dated 15th October 1991 and a relief has been sought that the land of which the petitioner Trust was deprived of, on the basis of the schemes evolved out under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, may be restored back to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and claims to be functioning for the last more than 100 years and it has also been submitted that this public Trust has been taking care of the stray, abandoned, weak and handicapped, infirmed, feeble and old cattle, which are otherwise, in the process of actually being sent to the slaughter house. The petitioner claims that this Trust has been doing a laudable work of protecting this cattle. The petitioner Trust held the land admeasuring about 1,76,739 sq.mtrs. in the municipal area of Surat. The Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1976 came into force on 19th June 1976 and thereupon the Town Planning Scheme No.9 (Majura) was prepared to reconstitute the various plots so as to make the allotment of the final plots. Whereas the petitioner's land covered in this Town Planning Scheme as per the original plot No.5825-C and the plots were reconstituted, in lieu of the final plots which were held by the petitioner Trust, Final Plot No.5825-I admeasuring 1,24,667 sq.mtrs. of the land was given to the petitioner Trust and while giving this land, the petitioner claims that this Trust was deprived of a land admeasuring 52,027 sq.mtrs. of the land. A compensation was determined to be paid to the petitioner Trust to the tune of Rs.3,59,193.00 which was paid to the petitioner Trust after adjusting the incremental charges. It is the petitioner's case that the land of which the petitioner was deprived of, was surrounded by some other plots and the land of which the petitioner Trust was deprived of along with other such plots was reserved by the Surat Municipal Corporation for a particular public purpose of sub-centres. In this regard, a reference has been made to the Resolution passed by the Surat Municipal Corporation dated 15th October 1991, i.e. Resolution No.252 annexed with the petition at page 22 and a further reference has been made to the Resolution passed by the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation dated 9th April 1992 vide its Resolution No.86 annexed with the Special Civil Application at page 21. It has been submitted that the Surat Municipal Corporation had decided in its meeting held on 15th October 1991 vide Resolution No.252 as aforesaid, to make allotment of the lands for a period of 99 years on the conditions mentioned therein and thereafter the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation, by its Resolution dated 9th April 1992 as aforesaid, allotted the land reserved for public purpose to Bank of India (respondent No.3), State Bank of India (respondent no.4), and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (respondent no.5). The petitioner also stated that out of the land admeasuring 52,072 sq.mtrs. of which the petitioner was deprived of and which was placed under reservation, a final plot no.M-4 was demarcated and it is out of this plot no.M-4, that certain sub-plots, namely, P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 etc. were made out. The petitioner submits that the land which is covered by final plot M-4 as aforesaid includes the petitioner's land to the extent of 52,072 sq.mtrs. and it is out of this land that the lands were reserved as under:

(3.) The respondents have traversed the petitioner's claim by filing replies such as, affidavit-in-reply dated 15th February 1993 filed on behalf of respondent no.5, i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; affidavit-in-reply dated 16th August 1993 filed on behalf of the Surat Municipal Corporation, (respondent no.2); affidavit in-reply purporting to be of June 1994 filed on behalf of the State Bank of India (respondent no.4); affidavit-in-reply purporting to be of 28th April 1995 filed on behalf of respondent no.3 (Bank of India) and at this stage, an affidavit-in-reply purporting to be dated 11th January 1995 is filed on behalf of the respondent no.6. It may be pointed out at this stage itself that the original affidavits-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents nos.3, 4 and 6 were not found to be in the record of this case and, therefore, copies of these replies have been taken on record from the respective Counsel with the consent of other Counsel appearing in this case including the learned Counsel for the petitioner who has candidly said that whereas she has duly received the copies of these affidavits even if the originals are not there, for the purpose of this case the copies as furnished by the respective Counsel may be considered.