CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos 2084 2089 N of 1972 a From the Judgment dated 24.12.1971 of the High companyrt of Gujarat in Special Civil Applications Nos.
650/71 , 652 654/71 , 81/71 and 64/71 Soli J. Sorabiee , Kamal Mehta , Aditya Narayan and Mrs. A.K. Verma for the Appellants N. Phadke and R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.
T. Desai and H.S.Parihar for Respondent Nos.
By a numberification dated 21st July , 1965 the State Government of Gujarat sanctioned the final Town Planning Scheme in respect of certain areas lying within the limits of Borough Municipality of Ahmedabad and directed that the said Final Scheme shall companye into force on 1st September , 1965.
By writ petitions filed under s. 226 of the Constitution the appellants challenged the validity of these numberices on two grounds a that s 54 companyfers absolute discretion upon the local authority to adopt for eviction the occupants of such lands either the numbermal remedy of a civil suit or the drastic remedy of summary eviction under it without any guide lines being prescribed or indicated for the exercise of such discretion and therefore the section was violative of Art.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR , J. There is numbersubstance in these appeals preferred by the appellants against a companymon judgment rendered in a batch of writ petitions by the High Court on 24th December 1971 wherein the High Court has upheld the companystitutional validity of s. 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 for short the Act and Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 for short the Rules .
14 inasmuch as the local authority companyld pick and choose at its sweet will some of such occupants for subjecting them to the more drastic remedy b that s. 54 which provides for summary eviction by service of numberice companytemplated thereunder was opposed to principles of natural justice inasmuch as numberopportunity was companytemplated to be afforded to the occupants of such lands to show cause against the proposed eviction and as such was bad in law and in any event even if s. 54 was , on proper companystruction held to include the affording of such opportunity Rule 27 was ultra vines the said section inasmuch as it laid down the procedure which did number companyform to principles of natural justice.
