SC Affirms: Omitting Points of Determination No Barrier to Appellate Justice

The Supreme Court clarified that failure to frame points for determination in the first appellate court separately doesn’t invalidate the judgment, as long as all pertinent issues are addressed. Justices A S Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar highlighted that adherence to Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, with reasons grounded in evidence, suffices for substantial compliance.

Here’s what happened:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court in favor of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, dismissing appeals by Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta and others.
The High Court’s judgment, allowing the municipal corporation’s first appeal against the City Civil Court’s decree, was deemed justified by the apex court.
The bench observed that the High Court adequately addressed all issues framed by the Trial Court and considered pertinent points during the appeal, rejecting claims of omission.
The suit against the corporation sought compensation or land allotment in lieu of contributed land for a town planning scheme in Ahmedabad’s western zone.
According to the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, surrendering land for a Town Planning Scheme does not guarantee reconstituted plot allotment, only compensation.
The court emphasized that extinguished rights from earlier land plots cannot form the basis for a new cause of action, citing the authority’s power to vary Town Planning Schemes.
The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting their claim for compensation of Rs 1,63,97,673, crucial for validating their plea.
Lack of evidence regarding land values for both original and final plots led to the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ compensation claim.
The absence of a guarantee for plot allotment post-surrender negated any vested rights claimed by the plaintiffs.
The bench highlighted the necessity for plaintiffs to provide evidence for their predetermined compensation claim, which they failed to do.
The plaintiffs’ claim for compensation was denied due to insufficient evidence, particularly regarding land values relevant to their case.
The absence of assurance for plot allotment post-surrender meant the plaintiffs could not assert any vested rights in this regard, according to the court’s ruling.