SHRI GIRISH VYAS & ANR. . versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 12-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 781 
SHRI GIRISH VYAS & ANR. . 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 198-199 of 2000) 
OCTOBER 12, 2011 
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING 
ACT, 1966: 
s. 23 (1) read with s. 38 - Revised Development Plan, 
and Development Control Rules, sanctioned - Subsequently, 
shifting of reservation of a primary school to a far off place, 
under D. C. Rule 13. 5 - Held: If the statute provides for doing 
A 
B 
c 
a particular act in a specified manner, it has to be done in 
0 
that manner alone and not in any other manner -
In the 
instant case, the shifting of reservation to a far off place, 
though effected under DC Rule 13.5; was in violation of the 
said rule and, as such, could not be justified - Once the State 
Government published the draft Development Plan reserving 
E 
the plot for a primary school, any construction contrary thereto 
could not be permitted - Development Control Rules - r. 13. 5 
s. 39 r/w ss. 59, 46 and 165 - Primacy of Development 
Plan over Town Planning Scheme - In Development Plan, 
plot reserved for a primary school - Land owner's claim that 
F 
as per Town Planning Scheme, the plot could be used for 
residential purposes -
Held: Subsequent to the 
commencement of MRTP Act, as per s. 39 rlw s. 59 thereof, 
a TP Scheme will have to be in consonance with the DP Plan 
- s. 39, r/w s. 59 do indicate the superiority of DP Plan over 
G 
TP Scheme -
s. 46 indicates that the moment a draft 
Development Plan is proposed, permission for contrary 
development can no more be granted - Besides, when the 
land-owner issued the purchase notice u/s 49 and led the 
781 
H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A State Government and the Municipal Corporation to acquire 
the plot, such a plea was never raised - Nor had the land 
owner taken any step in pursuance of the erstwhile TP Scheme 
- Therefore, the right claimed under the erstwhile TP Scheme 
cannot be sustained. 
B 
ss. 50 and 154 - Deletion of reservation - Held: s. 50 
provides for deletion of a reservation at the instance of the 
authority for whose benefit the reservation is made - In the 
instant case, the acquiring body is the Municipal Corporation, 
i.e., its general body, which has to be satisfied that the land 
C is no longer required for the public purpose for which it is 
reserved - The officers of the Planning Authority as well as 
of the Government department concerned were not in favour 
of deleting the reservation - The application of the landowner 
was received directly at the level of the Minister of State and 
D it was on latter's direction that the Municipal Commissioner 
gave a report which was used by the State Government and 
the Chief Minister approved the shifting of the reservation -
The Commissioner's opinfon could not have been treated as 
the opinion of the Municipal Corporation, and the State 
E Government could not have made any order sanctioning the 
deletion of reservation on the basis thereof - s. 154, cannot 
save the directions issued by the State Government or the 
actions of the Municipal Commissioner in pursuance thereof 
ss. 37 and 22A - Development Plan - Modification of -
F Held: The model of democratic planning involves the 
participation of the citizens, planners, administrators, 
Municipal bodies and the Government - The provisions of the 
Act indicate that once the plan is formulated, one has to 
implement it as it is, and it is only in the rarest of the rare 
G cases that one can depart therefrom - There is no exclusive 
power given to the State Government, or to the planning 
authority, or to the Chief Minister to bring about any 
modification, deletion or de-reservation, and certainly not by 
resort to any of the D. C. Rules - All these constituents of the 
H planning process have to follow the mandate u/s. 37 or 22A, 
GIRISH VYAS & ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 783 
& ORS. 
as the case may be, if any modification becomes necessary. 
A 
s. 126 - Acquisition of land - Change of purpose during 
acquisition - Applicability of Land Acquisition Act - Held: 
MRTP Act is a self-contained code and in the scheme of said 
Act substantive provisions of L.A. Act are not applicable - In 
8 
the instant case, the letter of the landowner had led to the 
subsequent steps for acquisition - s. 126 (1) (c) specifically 
states that when an application is made to the State 
Government for acquiring the land under the L.A. Act, the land 
vest
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.