Spread the love

The two judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprised of justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar gave it’s judgment on Friday, 10th May, 2024 for the case of  Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

The Supreme Court had mentioned many important points in the judgment but one of the most important point which they had mentioned was about framing the points in the  first Appellants judgment.

The court observed that even if the first appellate Court does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the first appeal, it is not fatal as long as that Court deals with all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal, in compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

In this case, there were two appeals which were   from a shared judgment of the Gujarat High Court, where it favored the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in First Appeal No. 3596 of 2009 and dismissed Cross-Objection No. 81 of 2010 in the same appeal.

The Corporation’s appeal contested a ruling by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 4583 of 1998, initiated by the appellants seeking compensation or alternative land allotment from the Corporation under Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Paldi, due to alleged failures in land allotment and possession. The appellants had claimed the  use of land which was given to them under the scheme since 1963, leading to various monetary losses. The Corporation disputed the suit’s maintainability, the adequacy of compensation, and the request for additional land allotment.

Later, the trial Court in it’s judgment upheld and supported the plaintiff’s claim for the land but they had also rejected the plea of monetary compensation to the plaintiff.

 The Court had observed and had said on the compensation plea of the plaintiff. The Court further said that : 

“ To sum up, having sought quantified damages of 1,63,97,673/-, it ₹ was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to adduce evidence in support of their claim for this pre-determined sum. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced by them in support of the land values relevant to any point in time, be it of the original final plot or the final plot that was ultimately given to them. In the absence of such crucial material, the plaintiffs’ prayer for compensation necessarily had to be negated. Further, as there was never any guarantee that a plot owner who surrendered his land pursuant to a town Planning Scheme would be allotted any land after reconstitution of the plots, the plaintiffs cannot assert any vested right in that regard.

The Court while concluding its judgment had also said that the High Court was right in it’s decision regarding the matter.

The Court said that “ On the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was fully justified in allowing the first appeal filed by the corporation and non-suiting the plaintiffs in entirety. The impugned

judgment does not brook interference on any count.

 Therefore, the court had dismissed the appeal of the appellant.



Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *