T. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ORS. versus TOWN PLANNING MEMBER AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T. VIJA YALAKSHMI AND ORS. 
V. 
TOWN PLANNING MEMBER AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI. JJ.] 
Urban Development: 
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act-Sanction of plan to 
C construct residential building in residential area under existing plan during 
pendency of proposed amendments-Rejection, on the ground that the 
property fell within 'Valley Zone in proposed comprehensive plan'-
Sustainability of-Held: Right of a person to construct a building is valuable 
right, regulated by regulatory statute-Building plans are to be dealt with 
D in terms of existing law-Right could be taken awiry by a clear provision or 
by appropriate amendment-Comprehensive development plan, prepared in 
terms of the Act was still in force and State was yet to approve the proposed 
plan-Thus, application for approval of building plans to be decided as per 
the law existing when permission was granted-Doctrine of legitimate 
expectation would apply-Doctrines. 
E 
Bangalore Development Authority prepared a comprehensive 
development plan in 1995 which was valid for ten years. The plan was further 
extended for another ten years. Appellants filed application seeking permission 
for approval of plan to construct residential building in residential area on 
F 29.11.2004. Applications were not disposed of within the period specified and 
as such appellants assuming that commencement certificate must be held to 
have been granted, started construction activities. The Authority obstructed 
the construction and also rejected the application for grant of sanction of plan 
on the ground that property fell within the "Valley Zone in the proposed 
comprehensive plan". Appellants challenged the order. Single Judge of High 
G Court held that the application could not have been rejected. Thereafter, though 
a new comprehensive development plan proposed by the Development Authority 
was yet to be notified, Authority filed an appeal challenging the order of Single 
Judge which was allowed. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
534 
-
-
T. Vl.IAYALAKSHMI v. TOWN PLANNING MEMBER 
535 
HELD: 1.1. Town Planning Legislations are regulatory in nature. The A 
right to property of a person would include a right to construct a residential 
building in the residential area. It is a valuable right which can only be 
regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there exists a clear 
provision the same cannot be taken away. The building plans arc required to 
be dealt with in terms of the existing law. Determination of such a question B 
cannot be postponed far less taken away. Doctrine of legitimate expectation 
in a case of this nature would have a role to play.1538-D; 539-A-CI 
1.2. In terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country 
Planning Act, a comprehensive development plan was prepared. It is still in 
force. High Court has not held that the existing laws were ultra vires. With C 
regard to the acceptance of amendments to the said comprehensive development 
plan as proposed by the Authority, the State is yet to apply its mind. It has 
called for objection from the citizens. Amendments to a development plan must 
conform to the provisions of the Act. But the rights of the parties cannot be 
intermeddled so long as an appropriate amendment in the legislation is not 
brought into force.1538-D-F; 538-GI 
D 
1.3. An application for gr.int of permission for construction of a building 
is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on the day on which 
such permission is granted. However, a statutory authority must exercise its 
jurisdiction within a reasonable time. Therefore, first respondent is directed 
to consider the application for grant of sanction or approval of the building E 
plans. (540-D-FI 
Director of Public Works and Anr. v. HO PO Sang and Ors., (1961) AC 
901; Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Ganges Rope Co. ltd. and 
Ors., (2004( I SCC 663 and Kuldeep Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 6 F 
SCALE 588, referre~ to. 
2. Ecological b~lance is required to be maintained and the courts while 
interpreting a statute should bestow serious consideration in this behalf, but 
ecological aspects, is ordinarily a part of the town planning legislation. If in 
the legislation or in the statute governing the field, ecological aspects have G 
not been taken into consideration keeping in view the future need, State and 
the Authority must take the blame therefor. I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.