LexPRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1517 PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR A v. ~ ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7 435 of 2008) DECEMBER 19, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Urban Development - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - .. Composite application for slum rehabilitation for two plots - i One of the plots reserved for recreational purpose - Grant of c 'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the plot reserved for recreational purpose - Denial of, in respect of the other plot on the ground that in respect of that plot permission for rehabilitation was granted to another developer - The order of denial not challenged by the developer - Writ Petition D seeking direction to authority to consider her proposal - Direction by High court to consider the application - Authority holding that the developer not entitled to permission as her 1 application was deficient and the permission for a part of the plot had already been given to other developer - Challenged E - High Court refusing to interfere with the matter - On appeal, held: Permission rightly rejected - The developer not entitled to relief, as she did not challenge the validity of the order denying her permission - The application was also rightly found deficient - Permission in respect of Plot No. 559 was not correct as the same was reserved for recreational purpose F - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - s. 159 - Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 - Regulation 33 (10) - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Chapter 1A. G Final plot Nos. 559 and 569 in Bombay Municipal Area were demarcated ·in terms of provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the scheme framed thereunder. The Plot No. 559 was 1517 H 1518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A declared as slum land by a Notification issued u/s. 3 (a) of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Respondent No. 6 (a Cooperrative Group Housing Society) filed an application for development of part of B Plot No. 569. On 15.10.1996 Municipal Corporation granted a 'No Objection Certificate' in its favour in requisite Form i.e. Annexure-11 including the four chawls. It gave all the particulars of eligible slum dwellers. Appellant also appl!ed for a 'No Objection certificate' C in respect ot'Plot No. 559 and a part of Plot No. 569. 'No Objection certificate' was granted in respect of Plot No. 559. As regards the part of Plot No. 569, Slum Rehabilitation Authority called upon Municipal Corporation to clarify as to whether Certificate under 0 Annexure II in respect of the dwellers of the chawl could be issued. Municipal Corporation rejected the proposal by_letter dated 31.8.2001 stating that it had already issued Annexure II in favour of respondent No. 6 and all the names of the dwellers of the chawl had been appearing therein. E Respondent No. 6 commenced the construction activities. As per direction of the court, pursuant to a litigation at the instance of the_ a-ppellant, Slum Development Authority passed the order on the grounds F that application seeking 'No Objection Certificate' was deficient and Annexure II had already been granted to respondent No. 6. Writ petition challenging the order was dismissed by High Court. Hence, the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. The High Court should not have decided such issues, as in the instant case, only on the ground of lack of locus standi of the appellant to maintain the writ application. She had the requisite locus standi. Her writ application, thus, deserved consideration on merit. [Para H 63] [1552-G-H; 1553-A] ( PRAMILA SUMANSINGH THAKUR v. STATE OF 1519 MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 2. In absence of any statutory provisions in terms A whereof the Corporation or for that matter any owner of the land was required to issue no objection certificate, the letter dated 15th October, 1996 cannot be said that it amounts to a 'No Objection Certificate', which was required to be obtained in terms of the statutory B provisions. The Ward Officer was merely performing his duties. He has no authority to grant a 'No Objection Certificate' on behalf of the Corporation. What is meant by such a no objection, should be considered from the point of view that the Municipal Corporation, as a planning authority at the relevant point of time gave its C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.