LexS.N. RAO & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ S.N. RAO & ORS. ETC. A v. J • STATE OF MAHARASHTRA FEBRUARY 9, 1988 [M.P. THAKKAR AND MURARI MOHON DUTI, JJ.] B 1 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Sections ., 31, 40, 43, 45, 46, and 47-Development of land for construction of five .... star hotel-Master plan showing the land as residential zone and conti· guous zone as green belt Municipal Commissioner rejecting the plan- Appeal to Government-Minister setting aside the Commissioner's c t order-Validity of the appellate order. A piece of land had been purchased for the construction of a five-star hotel. In the sanctioned development plan the said land was shown in the residential zone and a contiguous parcel of land was shown as green belt. When the plan was submitted to the Municipal Corpora- D r '! tion for the construction of a five-star hotel, the Commissioner rejected the plan on the ground that it was proposed to earmark the said land as a recreational ground with suitable internal network of roads during the revision of the development plan which was in the offing. Aggrieved by the rejection, an appeal was preferred to the State Government -( under sec. 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, E 1966 • ..,. The appeal was heard by the Minister of State for Urban Develop- • ment. The appellants herein, members of various ecological groups and rate payers of the Municipal Corporation, appeared and opposed saying that the land should be kept reserved for a green belt or recrea- F ~. tional ground in the interest of the general public. However, the Minis- ter set aside the oider of the Municipal Commissioner and directed the sanctioning of the plan on certain conditions. The Municipal Corpora- lion accepted the appellate order and did not challenge it. But the appellants filed a Writ Petition challenging the legality of the order. The .writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The present appeal by G special leave is against this dismissal. + Meanwhile the Municipal Corporation passed a resolution extending the park reservation by including the remaining area of the land in question. By another resolution the first resolution was modified limiting the reservation for the park to 7 ,OOO sq., yards out of the dis· H 919 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. A puled land. Thereafter the State Government exempted the disputed land under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The resolutions and the order were challenged in the High Court. The petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court and later by the Division Bench on appeal. The Review Petitions also met the same fate. The petitioners have not challenged the judgment of the B High Court passed on the review applications, but filed before this Court the two special leave petitions challenging the legality and vali- dity of the two resolutions and the order of Government giving exemp- tion under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. c Dismissing the appeal, and the special leave petitions, this Court, HELD: t. l In allowing the appeal and directing sanction of the development plan, the Minister observed that in view of the clear provi- sions or sections 46 and 31(6) of the Act and having regard to the position that in the sanctioned plan or 1966, the said land was included in the residential zone and no proposal to exclude it therefrom in the D draft revised development plan had been published, the Municipal Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the application for approval of the plan on the ground that the Bombay Municipal Corporation had decided to revise the 1966 Development Plan. The Minister was of the view that the Planning Authority could only take into consideration any draft or final plan or proposal which had been published by means of E notice, or sanctioned under the Act .. When Municipal Commissioner rejected the plan, there was no draft revised development plan in exis- tence. It was in contemplation. If there had been such a plan, the Municipal Commissioner would be entitled to rely upon the same in rejecting the plan. The Commissioner was not justified in merely relying upon- a proposal for the preparation of a draft revised plan. An order rejecting a development plan submitted by the owner of the land should be supported by some concrete material. In the absence of any such F material, it will be improper to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.