The Bombay High Court set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial and appellate courts, dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit challenging the vesting of land under the 1928 Town Planning Scheme. The Court held that the land had lawfully vested in the local authority under the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915.
The appellants, Municipal Corporation, contended that the suit was barred by time and not maintainable, as no notice under Section 80 of the CPC was given. They claimed that the 1928 town planning scheme set aside the land for parking carts and that Section 41 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915, gave the land to the Municipality. Compensation of ₹3,001 was fixed by an arbitrator, but the plaintiffs never collected it. They also said that Section 127 of the MRTP Act did not apply, and since the land was already vested, there was no question of illegal possession or acquisition.
The controversy arose when the plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership of certain plots in Ahmednagar city, arguing that the Municipality had taken over their land without proper acquisition or compensation. They claimed that the scheme was not sanctioned in 1928 but in the year 1950 which was evident from a letter on record. Additionally, they submitted that the defendants did not lead any evidence and therefore, their case was bound to fail in appeal. No material was placed on record by them to show that possession was actually handed over by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
The Court, however, rejected the plaintiffs’ claims and held that the town planning scheme was, in fact, validly sanctioned in 1928. It explained that once a final scheme is approved under Section 40 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915, the land stands vested in the local authority under Section 41, leaving no residual rights with the original owners. As for the ₹3,001 compensation, the Court said that just because it wasn’t paid out doesn’t undo the legal effect of the vesting. It also agreed with the Municipal Corporation’s position that the plaintiffs had no remaining claim once the scheme had come into force.
Accordingly, Justice Shailesh P. Brahme allowed the second appeal, set aside the lower courts’ decisions, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit.
Appearances:
For Appellants: Mr. Subodh P. Shah
For Respondents 1(i), 1(iii) to 1(v), and 5: Mr. Ajeet B. Kale
For Respondents 2(ii) and 2(iv): Mr. Sandip R. Andhale
