MIG CRICKET CLUB versus ABHINAV SAHAKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 05-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 11 S.C.R. 141 
MIG CRICKET CLUB 
v. 
ABHINAV SAHAKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS. 
(Civil appeal No. 2047 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 
ss.31(1), 37(2) - Sanction to draft development plan - Held: 
C 
Development Plan existing prior to the coming into force of 
the Act shall be deemed to be a sanctioned Development 
Plan u/s.31(1) of Act - In the instant case, the Development 
Plan existing prior to the commencement of the Act showed 
the area in question as reserved for "playground" which was 
D 
modified to "school and cultural society" by State Governn:ient 
in exercise of its power u/s.37(2) and earmarked for the 
"school and cultural centre" by notification dated 25th April, 
1985 -
Such a course was permissible under law -
Notification dated 24th April, 1992 provided that State 
E 
Government in exercise of powers conferred u/s.31(1) had 
modified the user of land to "playground" - This was not the 
modification of the Development Plan ·but sanction of the 
same in exercise of power uls.31 (1) of the Act - High_ Court 
misdirected itself by considering notification dated 10th April, 
1985 to be the sanction of the Development plan u/s.37(2) of 
F 
the Act and the notification dated 24th April, 1992 to be the 
modification of the final Development plan which rendered its 
order illegal. 
Administrative Law: Judicial review - Change in user of G 
land by State Government - Scope of judicial review - Held: 
User of the land is to be decided by the authority empowered 
to take such a decision and the Court in exercise of its power 
of judicial review would not interfere with the same unless the 
141 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A change if] the user is found to be arbitrary -
Town planning 
requires high degree of expertise and that is best left to the 
decision of State Government to which the advise of the expert 
body is available - Town planning. 
8 
Interpretation of statutes: Legal fiction - Held.· When a 
legal fiction is created, it shall be given full effect - Generally 
legal fiction is created to advance public policy and preserve 
the rights of certain individuals and institutions - Legal fiction 
tends to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real and entails 
the natural corollanes of that state of aff3irs. 
c 
The case of respondent no.1 was that it was granted 
lease of a portion of land for a period of 99 years by 
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority 
(MHADA) and Bombay Housing and Area Development 
D Board (BHADB) with the consent of Municipal 
Corporation of Greater Bombay (Corporation). When 
respondent no.1 proposed to construct a school building 
thereon, it noticed that area in question was reserved for 
a playground in the draft development plan. Respondent 
E no.1 brought this fact to the notice of MHADA and 
BHADB and in response respondent no.1 was asked to 
get the user of land changed in accordance with law. 
Meanwhile, the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning 
Act, 1966 came into force on 20.12.1966. In Febru.ary, 1984, 
F the Corporation passed a resolution sanctioning user of 
said plot for the purpose of constructing school. By 
notification dated 25.4.1985, the said land was earmarked 
for the school and cultural centre in the development plan 
of the area. During the period 1985-86, the appellant-club 
G approached the State Government for change of user of 
the said plot for "cricket playground". The attempts were 
made to convince respondent no.1 to shift the school to 
another plot as the plot in question was required by the 
appellant for its playground. Respondent no.1 did not 
H accept the proposal and by letter dated 10.11.1986 sought 
MIG CRICKET CLUB v. ABHINAV SAHAKAR EDUCATION 143 
SOCIETY 
permission to erect a compound wall on account of the 
A 
threats given by the appellant. Respondent no.1 
submitted the development plan to the State Government. 
However, contrary to the expectations of respondent 
no.1, notification dated 24.4.1992 was published in the 
Gazette on 7 .5.1992 which revealed that the State 
B 
Government in exercise of powers conferred under 
Section 31 (1) of the Act had modified the user of the land 
in question and instead of land being shown reserved for 
"school and cultural centre", it was shown as a 
'"playground". 'Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition c 
challenging the notification and fur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.