LexRAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OR$. ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 723 RAJENDRA SHAN KAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC. A v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OR$. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5769-5770 of 2015) JULY29, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973: B c ss.14, 17, 38(1) - Town Planning Scheme - Kamal Vihar Township Development Scheme (KVTDS) - Formulation of scheme by the Director of respondent No. 2-. RDA - Whether the KVTDS provide the authority to the 0 Director of respondent No.2-RDA, to formulate Town Development Scheme and is it in contravention to the 73ro and 741h Amendments to the Constitution - Held: Once the Constitution provides for democratically elected bodies for local self-government, a nominated body like Respondent E No. 2-RDA cannot assume the role of an elected body and consequently usurp the.power of the local authority in framing development schemes and subsequently altering the size and use of land in the KVTDS - s. 17 mandates the requirement of taking into consideration the Annual F Development Plan of the District prepared under the Adhiniyam of 1995 - However, in the case in hand, there is no evidence to show that Respondent No. 2-RDA had taken into consideration any repo1t'prepared under the Adhiniyam of 1995- s.14 confers·the power upon the Director of Town G and Country Planning appointed under the Act, to prepare development plans - However, this power conferred upon the Dir/3ctor has to be read along with s. 17 which mandates the Director to take into consideration, any draft Five Year Plan and Annual Development Plan of a district prepared H 723 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A under the Adhiniyam of 1995- There is no evidence to prove that the Director had taken into account any report made under the Adhiniyam of 1995 - On the other hand, the evidence clearly shows that the Development Plan has been altered to suit the requirement of KVTDS - This action by B the Director is impermissible and unlawful - Thi~refore, KVTDS, having formulated solely by Respondent No. 2- RDA without taking into consideration the reports of the local authority, violates the Act of 1973 as well as 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution - Madhya Pradesh Zila C Yojana Samiti Adhiniyam 1995 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Part IX and IX-A; Schedule seventh; List II, Entry 5 - Chhattisgarh Zilla Yojna Samiti Act, 1995- s. 3 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966- s. 65(1) Gujarat Town 0 Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976- s.45(1). s. 50(1) - Preparation of Town Development Scheme - Whether KVTDS is formulated as per the provision mentioned in s.50(1) of the Act of 1973-Held: s.50(1) vests the jurisdiction on the Authority to declare its intention for E preparing the Town Development Scheme which in this case is respondent no.2-RDA - s.49 provides that a Town Development Scheme can be proposed for the purpose of town expansion, for rebuilding and regenerating areas which F have degenerated into slums, acquire and development land for public, commercial and industrial purpose and also for other work which would bring about environmental improvement which shall also be taken up with the prior approval of the State Government- Respondent No. 2-RDA G has not put any document on record, either before the High Court or this Court to show any assessment of "need" or "requirement" for town expansion conducted by it prior to proposing the KVTDS - Even though KVTDS has allegedly been introduced for a population of 16,000 per 40 Hect. of H land, there is no document !survey report to show how the RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF 725 CHHATTISGARH said figure was arrived at by the RDA - Further; fre.quent A changes in the extent of land acquired for the KVTDS by the RDA is a very strong indicator of the fact that there is no rationale behind the proposal of the said Scheme - There is clear non-application of mind on the part of the State Government be'hind the increase in the sanctioned area of B KVTDS from 416.93 acres of land to 2300 acres of land- Therefore, the Scheme has not been formulated as per s.50(1). s. 50 - Whether the subsequent alteration of land C acquired, is in consonance with the provisions of the Act - Held: s.2(u) of the Act of 1973 defines a Town Development Scheme as a scheme formulated to implement the developmental plan - In the instant case, the development plan is the Master Plan o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.