LexKRIPA MANGAL KARYALAYA & ORS. versus NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 1082
SAi KRIPA MANGAL KARYALAYA & ORS.
v.
NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5577 of 2004)
FEBRUARY 12, 2015
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability of - PIL before
C High Court seeking direction to Nagpur Municipal corporation
(NMC) and Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) to remove
structures on the land owned by respondent-Trust leased out
to the appellant being contrary to building regulation and the
development plan under Town Planning Act - High Court
D allowing the petition directed demolition - Held: The PIL was
not maintainable as it was not bonafide, but filed on account
of personal disputes between the parties - There was also
long delay of eight years in filing the same - NMC was
empowered to sanction the building plan - High Court also
E not justified in deciding the disputed questions of facts without
looking into the original coloured plan - The true copy of the
plan cannot be relied upon to hold any construction illegal -
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Nagpur Improvement
F Trust Act, 1936 - Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There being a long delay of eight years in
filing the writ petition and in absence of challenge to the
G plan sanctioned by Nagpur Municipal Corporation, the
High Court was not justified in entertaining the so called
Public Interest Litigation filed by persons who had
personal dispute with respondent No.4. The writ petition
H
1082
SAi KRIPA MANGAL KARYALAYA v. NAGPUR MUNICIPAL 1083
CORPORATION
filed by respondent nos.5 and 6 was not bona fide, but it A
was filed only on account of personal disputes between
the parties i.e. inter Se between the members of
respondent-Trust indirectly affecting the appellants-
tenants. Respondent-Trust in its reply before the High
Court supported the appellants but before this Court
B
supported the case of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.[Paras 12
and 15) [1094-G-H; 1093-F·G)
2. Prior to 1967 Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC)
was the authority to exercise the power of sanctioning
C
the plan and since 27th February, 2002 the NMC was
again empowered to sanction the plan. During the period
from 1967 till 2002, though Nagpur Improvement Trust
was the Planning Authority for the city of Nagpur, it
abdicated its power, delegated it in favour of NMC and
did not sanction any building plan. [Para 13] [1094-B-C]
D
3. True copies of Notification dated 3rd June, 1976
and Part Development Plan of Nagpur City have been
produced wherein respondent-Trust has been shown
within the area of public institutions and offices. In
E
absence of original coloured plan, the true copy of the
plan cannot be relied upon to hold any construction
illegal in view of the fact that the N.M.C which sanctioned
building plan supposed to have gone through the original
plan. In absence of the sanctioned plan, the High Court
F
was not justified in deciding the disputed question of fact
as to whether the building was constructed in
accordance with Town Planning Scheme. The High Court
ought to have looked into the sanctioned plan to find out
whether it was for office (Karyalaya) or for residential or
G
for commercial purpose for coming to a definite
conclusion. [Paras 14 and 15] [1094-D-G)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5577 of 2004.
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2002 of the
High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ
Petition No. 1485 of 1984.
Prasenjit Deswani, Amol Chitale, Satyajit Saha, Prashant
B Kumar for the Appellants.
Arun Pednekar, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Charudatta
Mahindrakar, A. Salvin Raja, Anagha S. Desai, Nitin Lonkar,
Asha Gopalan Nair, Manish Pitale, Wasi haider, Chander
Shekhar Ashri, Rahul Jain, Shivaji M. Jadhav for the
C Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This
appeal has {>een preferred by the appellants against the
D judgment and order dated 30th April, 2002 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ
Petition No.1485of1984. By the impugned judgment, the High
Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent nos.5 and 6
E
F
G
H
and held as follows:
(i) The building permits granted by Nagpur Municipal
Corporation to tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.