Guj farmers challenge legality of Town Planning Act in HC

The Gujarat High Court today issued notice to government on a petition filed by farmers challenging the legality of Town Planning and Urban Development Act under which land is acquired by authorities.
A division bench of Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice V M Pancholi issued notice after 'Gujarat Khedut Samaj' and those farmers, whose land across 191 villages near Surat city has been included in the Draft Development Plan-2035 for future acquisition, challenged the document.
The Draft Development Plan (DDP) is prepared by Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA).
Notices have also been issued to the Principal Secretary of Department of Urban Development and Urban Housing and SUDA.

The petitioners contended that SUDA or for that matter any other urban authorities in the state "has no constitutional power, authority and jurisdiction to prepare and submit Draft Development Plan under Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976".
It maintains that "the draft development plan-2035 prepared by SUDA is absolutely without power, jurisdiction and authority and hence must be declared illegal and unconstitutional."

"As per the Constitution, the responsibility of planning and development in the rural area is of District Planning Committee and in urban areas (it) is of Metropolitan Planning Committee.
"Thus, the power of SUDA to prepare draft development plan-2035 for newly-covered 191 villages around Surat city is not in consonance with the Article 243 (Z)(D), Article 243 (Z)(E) and Article 243 (Z)(F) of Constitution and therefore the plan is illegal and unconstitutional," the petition said.

The petitioners also claimed that the state government has failed to follow the directions of the High Court which had asked them to constitute Metropolitan Planning Committee and District Planning Committee within four months, in response to a writ petition filed in 2014.
The HC had, in an order passed in February 2016 in response to a contempt petition on the same issue, again directed the government to do so within four months but no such thing has been done even after the lapse of the four-month deadline, the petitioners said.
The matter is posted for hearing after three weeks.