LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR. versus ADVANCE BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'-408 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER BOMBAY A AND ANR. v. ADVANCE BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & OTHERS August 25, 1971 (S. M. SIKRI, .C.J., A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] Town Planning Act, 1954, ss. 51, 53, 54 and 55-Duty of Corporation to remove unauthorised huts on allotted private plots. Practice and Proceaure-Writ of nzandamus issued by High Court- Jnterference qy Supreme Court. In August 1958, the State Government sanctioned a final town plan- ning scheme-The Bombay Town Planning Scheme, Santa Cruz, No .. Vi- and dire..ted that the scheme should come into force from !st January, 1959. As part of the scheme there was a Redistribution and Valuation Statemont and to the Statement some Notes were appended. Nole 11 provided that 'all huts, sheds, stables and such other temporary structures including those which do not conform to the regulations of the scheme are .required to be removed within one year from the date the final scheme comes into force.' In pursuance of the scheme plots were allotted,· .and ·the respondents becan1e the owners of certain plots. Huts 1 sheds· and stables had been built on those plots by slum dwellers.. Since the appellant· ·Corporation took no action for implementing the scheme, the respondents, from whom betterment charges were being recovered by the appellant, called upon the appellant to implement it by removing the slums, etc., and to provide roads and drains as directed in the scheme. The appellant however, ren1ained inactive, and the respondents filed a petition for the issue of a mandamus to the appellant and the High Court allowed the ·petition. In appeal to 'this Court, on the questions : (I) Whether the appellant was bound in law to remove the structures out the private plots of the res- pondents in so far as they contravened the Town Planning• Scheme, and (2) whether a writ of mandamus could issue at the instance -0f the res· pondents when they had collected rents from the occupants of the hut· ments, etc. HELD: (!) Under s. 51(3) of the Town Planning Act, 1954, the ·final scheme as sanctioned by the Government has the same effect as if it were enacted in the Act. The scheme and its regulations must, therefore. be read as supplemental to the Act .. Under s. 53, all rights in the original plots of the private owners would determine, and if, in the scheme, re- constituted or final plots arc allotted to thein, they shall become subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer in the final scheme. "The fact that the final plots coincided with the original plots of the p ivate ov.lners \vould not make any difference. Under s. 54 the local autnority has to see whether any person is occupying any land in disregard of the rights determined under the scheme, ant.I if he does so, he is to be sum- ·marily evicted by the local authority. Under s. 55(1) (a) every building "(}r work which is in contravention of the town planning scheme, wherever it may be in the area under the scheme, could be removed. pulled down -or altered by the local authority which. alone is named as the authority for .1hat purpose. [414 D-E; 415 A-B, C-D. H; 416 E-F; 417 G] B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H MUNIC. CORP. BOMBAY v. ADVANCE BUILDERS (Pa/ekar, I.) 409 In the present case, note 11 refers not merely to huts, sheds, stables which do not conform to the regulations of the scheme, but also to all huts, sheds, stables and such other temporary structures; ano whosoever the owner or occupant may be, he is required to re1nove it within one year from the date the final scheme came into force., Hence, if the owner or occupant dicl not so remove he would be contrav~ning the provisions of the scheme and thereupon the local authority will have the power under s.55 (I) (a) to remove or pull them down. The note takes note of the fact that the occupants of the hutments will be dishoused and makes provision for allotment of land to such dishoused persons. [416 F; 417 B-C] Therefore, it is the primary outy of the Corporation as the local authority to remove all offending huts, etc., in the whole area under the· scheme and not merely from those areas which am allotted to the Corpora- tion. That the respondent could, by having recourse to Jaw, eject the slum dwellers and remove their huts would not be a relevant conside'ration since the duty is imposed by the A:ct on the appellant.. Further, there is no pro- vision in the Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.