On Letter Patent Appeal, the Division Bench companyfirmed the same.
82 and 83 until due procedure is followed.
The Town Planning Scheme was formulated by the munic ipal companyporation exercise of its power under the Bombay Town Planning Act 1955 Act 27 of 1956 for short the Act and reconstituted the final plot Nos.
The appellants suit was decreed declaring that final plot Nos.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.1977 of the Guja rat High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The original plot companysists of an area about 5 hundred to 6 hundred square yards in extent wherein certain structures were laid and leased out to the tenants or sub tenants for business pur poses.
82 and 83 out of the original plot No.
Thus this appeal.
59 of the Town Planning scheme No.
The Town Planning Officer did number issue special numberice as required under sub rule 3 and opportunity provided for under sub rule 4 of Rule 21.
16, Sher Kota Admn.
82 and 83 upon which the structures were standing with Municipal No.
Shri Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel for the respond ents claimed that special numberice required under sub rule 3 and the opportunity under sub rule 4 of Rule 21 were number mandatory.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Hence they were number companyplied with.
U. Mehta, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep S. Parihar, Mrs. Manik Karanawala N.P. , Mrs. Nandini Gore and Anip Sachthey P. for the Respondents.
Survey No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.
H. Parekh and Ms. Shalini Soni for the Appellants.
114 of 1977.
1354 of 977.
The appellants along with others filed civil suits challeng ing the action.
352/3 and in occupation of the appellants is illegal, invalid and issued a permanent injunction restraining the respondent number to enforce the reconstituted plot Nos.
