Disputes over shares and demarcation in joint final plots to be resolved by special committee under Section 67A of Gujarat Town Planning Act

The original petitioner (Respondent No. 1), a co-owner of Revenue Survey No. 323 paiki, challenged the implementation of Town Planning Scheme No. 10.

The survey number was renumbered as Original Plot No. 13/1 and subsequently redistributed into Final Plot Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Rajkot Municipal Corporation to implement the scheme and hand over possession of his share.

A learned Single Judge previously directed the Corporation to either allot proportionate land or propose a variation of the scheme.

The Corporation appealed, arguing that a legislative amendment during the pendency of the dispute provided a specific administrative remedy for such grievances.

1. Whether the dispute regarding the demarcation of shares among co-owners in a sanctioned Town Planning Scheme can be resolved through the statutory mechanism provided under Section 67A of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.

2. Whether the directions of the learned Single Judge regarding the variation of the scheme require modification in light of the new statutory provision.

Section 67A of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (inserted by Gujarat Act No. 11 of 2014) provides that where a final plot is allotted in joint ownership, any joint owner may apply to a specially constituted Committee—comprising the Secretary of Urban Development, the Chief Town Planner, and an appointed member—to define shares and demarcate areas.

The decision of this Committee is legally deemed to be part of the sanctioned scheme under Section 65 of the Act.

The Court observed that the primary obstacle to implementing Town Planning Scheme No. 10 was the lack of identification and demarcation of the specific shares of various co-owners within Original Plot No. 13/1.

Rather than requiring a complex "variation" of the scheme as suggested by the Single Judge, the Court found that the insertion of Section 67A provided a streamlined "smooth process" for adjudication.

The Court reasoned that since the dispute was fundamentally about the internal distribution of shares among joint holders, the statutory Committee constituted under Section 67A(2) was the competent authority to hear all parties—including the Corporation and newly joined claimants—and pass a binding decision that integrates directly into the final scheme.

The Committee is directed to decide the application within two months of receipt after giving notice to all concerned parties; the Court clarified it did not enter into the merits of individual claims, leaving those to the Committee's independent examination.

All connected civil applications were disposed of accordingly.