Chandravadan Chunilal Shah and Others vs State of Gujarat and Others

D.S. Sinha, C.J.—Heard Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. A.Y. Kogje, learned A.G.P., appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr. B. S. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. D. C. Dave, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, at length and in great detail.

The instant appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order, dated 29-6-2001 rendered by the learned single Judge in Spl. C. A. No. 267 of 1997 between Chandravadan Chunilal Shah and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.

By the impugned judgment and order, the challenge of the appellants to the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 3, framed by Petlad Urban Development Authority, on the ground of lack of individual/personal service of notice u/s 52 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), has been turned down. The appellants being tenants of respondent No. 4 claimed right to individual and personal service of notice.

, 4. Section 52 of the Act envisages giving of a notice to the person affected by the scheme, in the form and manner prescribed.

The form and the manner for giving notice u/s 52 of the Act is provided in Rule 26 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''). Rule 26 of the Rules provides that the notice shall be published in the official gazette and in one or more Gujarati Newspapers circulating within the area of the appropriate authority and shall be pasted in prominent places at or near the areas comprised in the scheme and at the office of the Town Planning Officer. The Rule further provides that notice shall be in Form ''H''. Thus, the manner prescribed for giving the notice is publication in Official Gazette, in newspaper, pasting in the relevant area and at the office of the Town Planning Officer, and the form prescribed is Form ''H''.

The notice published by the relevant authority is on record. Upon perusal of the record, it is absolutely clear that notice was in the prescribed Form ''H'', the manner of giving notice was publication in the Official Gazette and newspapers, and pasting in the area and at the office of Town Planning Officer. Thus, in the opinion of the court, there is no lacuna in compliance of the requirement of giving notice in the prescribed manner and prescribed form to the persons affected by the scheme.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants also assails the view taken by the learned single Judge that the law does not require giving of a special notice to any person interested in or affected by the town planning scheme. The view taken by the learned single Judge is well fortified by the decision of another learned single Judge, rendered in Shilpa Park Co.-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Surat Urban Development Authority and Others, , which, in turn, is founded on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, rendered in Spl. C.A. No. 1608 of 1979, on 20-4-1992.

For what has been stated above, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order on the civil application.