R.K. MITTAL & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 05-12-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · 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] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 877 
R.K. MITTAL & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. 
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6962 OF 2005) 
DECEMBER 05, 2011 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND 
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
Town Planning - Change of user of land - Permissibility 
A 
B 
- Power of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority to 
permit users, other than residential, in the sectors specifically C 
earmarked for 'residential use' in the Master Plan of the New 
Okhla Industrial Development Area - Ambit and scope of -
Held: A decision sought to be taken by the Development 
Authority in the garb of a policy decision matter, if not in 
conformity to the Master Plan, the Regulations and provisions 
D 
of the Act in force, would be an action extra }us -
The 
Development Authority or its officers, have no power to vary 
the user and spaces prescribed in the Master Plan, except 
by amending the relevant laws and that too, for a proper object 
and purpose -
In the present case, the action of the E 
Development Authority in permitting mixed user was in 
apparent violation of the statutory provisions in the Master 
Plan - Establishment of banks and nursing homes in the 
residential sectors meant for residential use alone was 
unequivocal violation of the statutory provisions in the Master F 
Plan - No power was vested in the Development Authority to 
permit such user and ignore the misuse for such a Jong 
period - All the cases where banks, nursing homes or any 
commercial activity was being carried on, particularly like the 
appellants' case, where a bank and company were running 
G 
their offices in the residential sectors amounted to change of 
user and was thus impermissible - The lessees, who changed 
the user contrary to law, are liable to be proceeded against 
as per the terms of the lease deed and the provisions of the 
877 
H 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Act - U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - New Okhla 
Industrial Development Area (Preparation and Finalization of 
Plan) Regulations, 1991 -
The New Okhla Industrial 
Development Area Building Regulations and Directions, 
2006. 
B 
The ambit and scope of. the power of New Okhla 
Industrial Development Authority to permit users, other 
than residential, in the sectors specifically earmarked for 
'residential use' in the Master Plan of the New Okhla 
C Industrial Development Area was the· basic issue in the 
instant appeals. 
The question that arose for consideration of the 
Court was whether the residential premises can be, 
wholly or partly, used by the original allottee or even its 
D transferee, for any purpose other than residential. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The change of user, in the case in hand, 
has to be seen in light of the Master Plan, the New Okhla 
E Industrial Development Area 
(Preparation and 
Finalization of Plan) Regulations, 1991and the provisions 
of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The 
legislative purpose that emerges from the sc'ieme of the 
Act and other relevant provisions is to keep 1 residential 
F building separate from commercial and other buildings. 
This would necessarily imply that the jurisdiction of the 
Development Authority to permit different user in violation 
of this statute and the Regulations is not contemplated 
in law. In the present case, the change in user of the 
G building was violative not only of the New Okhla Industrial 
Development Area (Preparation and Finalization of Plan) 
Regulations, 1991, byelaws and the provisions of the U.P. 
Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, but was also 
contrary to the law governing erection of the building. 
H 
R.K. MITTAL & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 879 
& ORS. 
[Paras 16 and 23] [903-C-E; 905-F-H] 
Hari Rao v. N. Govindachari & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 643: 
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 217 and Dev Brat Sharma v. Jagjit 
Mehta (1990) Supp. SCC 724 - held inapplicable. 
A 
2. The development Plan has to be prepared in 8 
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the 
Regulations framed thereunder. The notified development 
Plan has a legal sanction and provisions contained 
therein are mandatory in nature. They are incapable of 
being altered or varied without following the due process C 
prescribed in law. [Para 25] [907-F-H; 908-A-B] 
NO/DA Entrepreneurs Association v. NO/DA & Ors. 
(2011) 6 SCC 527 and NDMC & Ors. v. Tanvi Trading and 
Credit Private Limited and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 765: 2008 (12) D 
SCR 867 - relied on. 
3. The development P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.