Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

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

A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar emphasised that it is well settled that the mere omission to frame the points for determination would not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court, provided that the first appellate court recorded its reasons based on the evidence adduced by both parties. 

In the instant case, the apex court found the High Court was fully justified in allowing the first appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and non-suiting the plaintiffs in entirety. 

The court dismissed appeals filed by Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others against the Gujarat High Court's decision of 2013 in first appeal, saying the judgment does not brook interference on any count.

In the case, the bench noted, "The High Court did set out all the issues framed by the Trial Court in the body of the judgment and was, therefore, fully conscious of all the points that it had to consider in the appeal. Further, we do not find that any particular issue that was considered by the Trial Court was left out by the High Court while adjudicating the appeal. In effect, we do not find merit in the contention that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on this preliminary ground, warranting reconsideration of the first appeal by the High Court afresh."

The High Court had allowed the first appeal by the municipal corporation against the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad's decision decreeing a suit in favour of the appellant. 

The said suit was filed by the appellants herein against the Corporation seeking compensation of Rs 1,63,97,673 with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum or, in the alternative, allotment of land, i.e., an extent of 974 sq mts, in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of Ahmedabad as the corporation failed to deliver plot in lieu of contribution of land for a town planning scheme.

Referring to the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, the bench said, a plot owner who has surrendered his original land for the purposes of the Town Planning Scheme is not even assured of allotment of a reconstituted plot in lieu thereof. In such an event, he is entitled only to compensation. 

"Therefore, there is no guaranteed right vesting in a plot owner who surrendered his land in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme that he would be allotted another plot of land in lieu thereof, much less, a plot of the same area," the bench said.

The court said the preparation or variation of a Town Planning Scheme, the rights in the earlier plots of land would stand extinguished. That being so, such rights, if any, which have become extinct cannot be the basis for a later cause of action. Further reduction of a plot notified in the original Town Planning Scheme is implicit in the general power of variation vesting in the authority under Section 71 of the Act of 1976, it added.

In the case, the bench noted having sought quantified damages of Rs 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," the bench said.

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, it added.