LexHARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 318
HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6156 OF 2013)
August 07, 2020
[INDU MALHOTRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966– ss.88,
91, 59, 65, 69 and 125-129–‘DKR’ and ‘ID’ were recorded in the
revenue records as owners of Plot No.473 in 1959 – Plot divided in
1970–Plot No.473-B1 was owned by ‘KN’, Plot No.473-B2 by ‘PM’,
and Plot No.473-B3 by ‘DKR’and ‘ID’, Plot No. 473-B4, a vacant
plot of land was shown as an Internal Private Road measuring
444.14 Sq. mtr. in the possession of ‘DKR’,‘ID’, ‘KN’ and ‘PM’–
Development Scheme proposed under the 1966 Act including Final
Plot No.473 – Arbitrator appointed, directed the area and ownership
of the plots to be as per entries in the property register–In 1979, the
Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned and came into effect– In ‘B’
Form, Final Plot No.473 was shown to have been divided into five
parts with road measuring 444.14 Sq. mtr. to be owned by Pune
Municipal Corporation (PMC) – ‘ID’executed a registered trust
deed constituting the appellant-trust and transferring Plot no.473-
B3 and the internal road to them – Appellant requested the State
Govt. to correct the wrong entry in the name of PMC–Eventually,
Urban Development Department,Govt.of Maharashtra rejected the
proposal for modification of the scheme u/s.91inter alia finding that
PMC was the owner of the land –Appellants filed writ petition –
Dismissed –On appeal, held: High Court failed to apply its mind to
the records of PMC w.r.t property holders,the Arbitrator’s Award
which had assumed finality– Admittedly, the private road in question
did not belong to PMC, was never acquired and the name of PMC
was wronglyrecorded – In the light of admissions, respondents had
a public duty u/s.91 to appropriately modify the scheme and to show
the private road as property of its legitimate owners–High Court
erred in law in dismissing the Writ Petition with the observation that
the land in question had vested u/s.88 in PMC – s.88 cannot be
read in isolation – It has to be r/w ss.125-129 relating to compulsory
318
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
319
acquisition as also ss.59, 69 and 65–Appellant cannot be deprived
of the land being the private road without authority of law in
violation of Art.300 - A prohibiting deprivation of person from
property without authority of law – Impugned judgment set aside –
Constitution of India – Arts.300-A, 142, 226.
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966– ss.3,4,
8, 21, 22, 51, 59-65, 68, 71-74, 91; Chapter VII- ss.125-129 –
Scheme of the Act – Discussed.
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966– s.91 –
Held: Condition precedent for variation of a scheme u/s.91 is an
error, irregularity or informality.
Constitution of India – Art.226 –Jurisdiction under – Duty of
High Courts– Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has apparently misconstrued
Section 88, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
(‘the Regional and Town Planning Act’) reading the same in a
narrow, pedantic manner in isolation from other relevant
provisions of the Regional and Town Planning Act, as discussed
later in the judgment.The High Court has failed to address the
question of how the name of Pune Municipal Corporation could
all of a sudden be shown as the owner of the internal road with
effect from 4th March 1986, in complete disregard of all records.
The High Court has, with the greatest of respect, failed to apply
its mind to relevant facts, particularly the records of the Pune
Municipal Corporation with regard to property holders, the
Arbitrator’s Award dated 16.5.1972 under section 72 of the
Regional and Town Planning Act and the admission of Pune
Municipal Corporation that the road did not belong to it, it was
never acquired and that the name of Pune Municipal Corporation
had wrongly been recorded. Rather, the High Court records that
the Respondent authorities have not disputed facts in their
counter affidavit, but only claimed that the land had vested under
Section 88 and that it was not feasible to make changes in the
Scheme.The finding of the High Court that it was never the case
HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
of the petitioner that the land had not vested, is misconceived.
First of all there does not appear to be any admission of vestingExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.