ANJUMAN E SHIATE ALI & ANR. versus GULMOHAR AREA SOCIETIES WELFARE GROUP & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 17-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
ANJUMAN E SHIATE ALI & ANR.
v.
GULMOHAR AREA SOCIETIES WELFARE GROUP
& ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6216-6217 of 2019)
APRIL 17, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Urban Development:
Town Planning - Allotment of area of 46,850 sq. yards for
residential purpose out of total area 5,80,000 sq. yards allocated
for development Scheme prepared by Development Authority –
Layout prepared by the allottee for the area 46,850 sq. yard, by
dividing the same into smaller plots and leaving certain area as
open space, was approved by competent authority – In subsequent
plan made by Development Authority for the entire development
Scheme, the areas left as open spaces in allottee’s layout plan, was
shown as residential area – Consequently construction allowed by
Development Authority on the area initially left as open space –
Writ petition (PIL) on the plea that the open spaces sanctioned in
the layout plan cannot be used for construction – High Court
allowed the petition – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The area
left towards open spaces in the approved layout, were in conformity
with the Regulation No. 39 of 1967 DCR and ss. 302 and 302A of
Municipal Corporation Act – In an approved layout, areas left as
open spaces are to be continued in that manner alone and no
construction can be permitted on such open spaces – The
development plan as per 1991 DCR will not divest utility of plots
reserved for open spaces – Therefore, the open spaces in the
approved layout cannot be allowed to be used for the purpose of
construction – Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 –
ss. 302 and 302 A.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The two plots, which are shown as open spaces/
garden, in the approved layout, cannot be allowed to be used for
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 706
706
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
the purpose of construction. A large area of 46,850 sq. yards was
allotted to the Trust for the purpose of allotting small plots. The
entire area of 46,850 sq. yards was covered by four big plots,
bearing nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. For utilizing such large area, by dividing
the same into smaller plots, the Architect of the Trust has prepared
layout and submitted to competent authority, showing these two
small plots as open spaces/garden. It is not in dispute, such layout
is approved and all the plots, except these two plots, which are
left towards open space/garden were utilized for construction.
Having had the benefit of such approved layout, and after making
constructions in all the plots, except these two plots, which are
left towards open space/garden, the appellants cannot claim that
they are entitled to make constructions, based on development
plan prepared by MHADA, for the entire JVPD Scheme, which
covers more than 5,80,000 sq. yards. [Para 20][716-D-G]
2. The development plan which is prepared by MHADA
for entire area of more than 5,80,000 sq. yards, indicates broadly
the usages in different zones. It is well known that such
development plans are prepared by showing various zones such
as residential, commercial, industrial etc. Merely because in such
development plan prepared, in the area shown for residential
purpose, authorities have not indicated the open spaces/garden,
which were already left in the approved layout in such residential
area, appellants cannot claim the benefit of making constructions
in the plots which were left towards open space/garden. It is fairly
well settled that the open spaces/garden left in an approved layout,
cannot be allowed for the purpose of constructions. However, if
one wants to utilize a big plot within the area of residential usage
as indicated in the development plan, it is mandatory to sub-divide
such big plots into smaller plots for utilizing them for the purpose
of construction. When the layout is to be approved, certain
percentage of area is required to be left towards roads, open
plots, garden etc. The development Plan prepared by MHADA,
cannot be confused with the layout which is approved confining
to four big plots, on the application made by the appellants. It is
not necessary for only the owner to apply for such layout. In any
event, having applied for layout which was approved and after
utilizing the 59 plots out of total of 61 plots, it is not open for the
ANJUMAN E SHIATE ALI v. GULMOHAR AREA
SOCIETIES WELFARE GROUP
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
appellants to plead that it was not the obligation of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.