LAW FOR ALL

Section 40(3)(jj)(a) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - Challenged as unconstitutional and have also challenged the action on the part of the Municipal Corporations (Ahmedabad and Surat) for declaring the intention to frame town planning schemes by issuing notifications - High court partly allowed and held that section would be operative for the land other than the land covered by Section 20(2) of the Act 1976, though upheld the validity of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Act 1976 - Apex court held that as the authority is only dealing with the issues at a draft stage and the applicants have ample opportunity to file their objections and are entitled to personal hearing as required under Rule 26 clause (4), the matter can be adjudicated before the statutory authority. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the apprehensions raised by the applicants at this stage are pre-mature. More so, there is no reason to believe that the authorities would act arbitrarily and would not take into consideration the grievance raised by the applicants. In view of the above, Civil Appeal Nos.1542-44 of 2001, 1545-50 of 2001 and 1551-56 of 2001 are allowed. The judgment impugned therein are set aside to the extent hereinabove.= Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. …Appellants Versus Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Mandal & Ors. …Respondent = 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41534