K. L. GUPTA & ORS. versus THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 21-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

K. L. GUPTA & ORS. 
"· 
THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 
August 21, 1967 
[K. N. WANCHOO, C.1 .. R. s. BACHAWAT, v. RAMASWAMI, G. K. 
MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, 11.) 
Bombav Town Planning Act, 1954, ss. 9, 10, 11, 12 and fil-Whe-
ther violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 
The petitioners were owners of certain land in Greater Bom-
bay in respect of which a declaration of intention under s. 4(1) of 
the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, to prepare a development 
plan had been made by the respondent Bombay Municipal Corpo-
rati~n. They applied to the Municipal Commissioner,. in January 
1962, for permission to change the existing user of their land and 
for a commencement certificate under s. 12 to construct factory 
sheds on a part of the land, but their application was rejected by 
the Executive Engineer, Development Plan. A tentative develoir 
ment plan for the area which included the petitioner's land was 
published on January 9, 1964, in which their land was shown as 
partly reserved for public roads, partly for industrial purposes and 
the rest was marked green. After a large number of objections and 
suggestions on the tentative plan had been received and considered 
in accordance with the provisions of s. ~ of the Act, the Municipal 
Cori>oration finally approved the plan on July 2, 1964 and forward-
ed it to the State Government for its sanction under s. 10. The 
State Government sanctioned the final development plan for the 
ward in which the petitioners' lands were located on Septemter 14, 
1966 after consulting its special Consulting Surveyor, who scruti-
nised all the objections received' by the Municipal Corporation and 
heard the objectors. The final plan showed that a major portion of 
the petitioner's land was earmarked for a recreation centre. 
Although a writ petition filed by the petitioners before the 
publication of the tentative development plan against the rejection 
of their application for a commencement certificate was allowed by 
the High Court on the ground that powers of the Municipal Cor-
poration under s. 12 had not been exercised by an officer prescribed 
under s. 86, two subsequent petitions filed by them after the appro-
val of the final plan by the Municipal Corporation to obtain redesi-
gnation of their land were dismissed. 
1n the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the 
petitioners claimed that after the reservation of their land as shown 
in the tentative plan published on January 9, 1964, its redesignation 
in the final plan for a recreation centre was without authority of 
law and violative of their rights under Arts. 14 and 19. It was con-
tended, inter aiia, (i) that sections 9 and 10 of the Act were invalid 
and unconstitutional in that they empowered the local authority and 
the State Government to modify, as a result of objections received 
from other persons, a development plan, against which a particular 
person may not have objected, without giving an opportunity to 
that person to represent against a subsequent modification ty which 
his interest may be adversely affected; (ii) that under s. 12 the final 
274 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
., 
G 
H 
I
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GUYrA V. MUNC. CORPN., BOMBAY (Mitter, J,) 
275 
and only authority who had the power to grant or withhold permis-
sion to carry on any development work after a declaration of inten-
tion under s. 4(1) was the Municipal Commissioner; he could, under 
s. 13, grant or refuse a commencement certificate at will, th~re 
being nothing to guide him in such a matter before the preparation 
of a development plan;· even after the preparation of such a plan, a 
commencement certificate could be refused arbitrarily and there 
was no provision for any appeal from or revision of the order 
containing the refusal; and (iii) that by. the combined operation of 
ss. 4 ancll 11(3), the local authority could easily delay the acquisi-
tion of any land designated for a public purpose under s. 7 of the 
Act for 14 years and this constituted an unreasonable restriction 
on the right to hold property. 
Held: The objections raised as to the invalidity of sections 
9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 could not be upheld. 
(i) The contention that a person was given no opportunity of 
meeting the objections raised by others with regard to the develop-
ment plan has no force in the light of the facts disclosed as to the 
enormity of the task of finalising the development plan. If the 
authorities were to hear all the par

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