USMAN GANI J. KHATRI OF BOMBAY ETC. ETC. versus CANTONMENT BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
USMAN GANI J. KHATRI OF BOMBAY ETC. ETC. 
A 
CANTONMENT BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MAY l, 1992 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.) 
B 
Pune Cantonment "(Building) Bye-Laws, 1988: 
Scheme of building restrictions and bye-laws-Superseding the earlier 
bye-laws-Brought into force in larger public interest-Applicability of-Con-
C 
dition that building plans could be sanctioned on conversion of land into 
freehold site-Non-payment of conversion charges in full--Effect of-Refusal 
to sanction plan--¥a/idity of-Sanction-To be made in accordance with 
building regulations prevailing at the ,time of sanction-Whether any legal.right 
accrues be/ ore the plan gets final sanction. 
Bye-laws for regulating the erection and re-erection of buildings 
within the area of the Respondent Board were made in 1947. Since these 
bye-laws did not contain adequate provisions to prevent overcrowding as 
D 
a result of haphazard and high-rise constructions, the Respondent Board 
issued a new scheme of restrictions by its order dated 24.12.1982 laying E 
down the minimum space required to be left open and floor space index 
to be adhered to in the matter of new constructions. Subsequendy, in 1984 
the Board modified its earlier order and issued the second scheme or 
restrictions on 26-3-1984. Thereafter, the Board framed new bye-laws 
known as Pone Cantonment (Building) Bye-laws, 1988 which superseded 
the 1947 Bye-laws. The new bye-laws, approved the second scheme of F 
building restrictions which restricted the height of buildings to 18 metres 
and the maximum number or storeys to ground plus two.· 
The petitioners submitted their building plans before the First 
Scheme of building restrictions was brought into force. The Respondent· 
Board intimated the petitioners that their plans-could be sanctioned only G 
after conversion of the old grants . into freehold tenure and subject to 
payment of conversion charges by them. The Respondent took notice of the 
fact that some of the petitioners started constructing buildings ignoring 
the Fist Scheme of restrictions and without making full payment or 
conversion charges. The petitioners were required to re·submit the plans H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992)3 S.C.R. 
A 
in accordance wtih the new scheme. The Board also made it clear that any 
~ 
sanction made was valid only for procuring cement and not for execution 
of work and so no construction should be started till final sanction for 
conversion was received from Government. 
Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Respondent-Board, ·the 
B petitioners r.led Writ Petitions before the High Court, and the same were 
dismissed. The High Court held that the condition of conversion was not 
severable from the sanction to the plan and was in fact a condition 
precedent and foundation of the sanction. It also held that the new scheme 
of regulations was legislative in nature and was not in conftict with the 
C bye-laws. The High Court further held that the Respondent-Board would 
have to sanction a plan afftsh after conversion and such plan would be 
governed by the building regulations prevailing at the time of the fresh 
sanqion by the Board • 
. D 
Against the said judgm.:41t of the High Court, the petition~rs have 
preferred the present Special Leate P~titions. 
The petitioners contended that the Second Scheme of restrictions 
and the 1988 bye-laws Were not applicable to them and that they were 
willing to abide by the First Scheme of restrictions, and that the construc-
E 
tion already made during the period of stay granted by the High Court or 
otherwise, may be allowed to stand. 
Dismissing the petitions, this Court, 
F 
HELD: 1. The schemes of building restrictions made on 24.12.1982 
and 26.3.1984 and amended bye-laws in 1988 putting restrictions and 
reducing the height and Door space· index in respect of multi-storeyed 
buildings, have been made in larger public interest and for the benefit of 
the entire population of the city of Pone. The validity of such schemes or 
bye-laws have not been challenged before this Court. The slogan of the 
G builders and land owners of utilising the maximum area for construction 
of high rise buildings for fulfilling the need of houses in big urban cities 
should always be subservient to the building restrictions and regulations 
made in the larger interest of the whole inhabitants and keeping in view 
the inftux of population, environment hazards, sanitation, provision for 
H supply of water, e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.