1988 (2) TMI 472 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Municipal Corporation's rejection of the development plan.
2. Validity and interpretation of Section 46 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
3. Competence of the appeal under Section 47 of the Act.
4. Conditions imposed by the appellate authority for sanctioning the development plan.
5. Impact of the draft revised development plan on the case.
6. Validity of the Municipal Corporation's resolutions regarding park reservation.
7. Legality of the exemption granted under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Municipal Corporation's Rejection of the Development Plan:
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay rejected the development plan for constructing a five-star hotel on the ground that the land was proposed to be earmarked as a recreational ground in the forthcoming revised development plan. The appellate authority, however, set aside this rejection, observing that the land was included in the residential zone in the 1966 sanctioned plan, and no proposal to exclude it had been published in the draft revised plan.

2. Validity and Interpretation of Section 46 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
Section 46 mandates that the Planning Authority must consider any draft or final plan or proposals published by notice under the Act when deciding on a development application. The appellate authority believed that only published plans or proposals could be considered. However, the appellants argued that other relevant facts, including contemplated revisions, should also be taken into account. The court agreed that Section 46 does not preclude consideration of other relevant facts, but noted that, in this case, no draft revised plan existed at the time of the Municipal Commissioner's decision.

3. Competence of the Appeal under Section 47 of the Act:
The appellants contended that no appeal was competent under Section 47 once the Municipal Corporation decided to revise the development plan. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 47 does not support such a contention, and holding otherwise would amount to rewriting the provision.

4. Conditions Imposed by the Appellate Authority for Sanctioning the Development Plan:
The appellate authority sanctioned the development plan with specific conditions, including reserving 15% of the land for recreational space, adhering to Development Control Rules, and allowing the Municipal Commissioner to take possession of the green space. These conditions ensured that a significant portion of the land would be reserved for public use, demonstrating the authority's consideration of public interest.

5. Impact of the Draft Revised Development Plan on the Case:
During the pendency of the appeal, a draft revised development plan was published, which was not inconsistent with the respondent's plan. This fact undermined the appellants' arguments against the development plan. The court found no evidence that the draft revised plan was prepared under the direction of the appellate authority, further supporting the decision to sanction the development plan.

6. Validity of the Municipal Corporation's Resolutions Regarding Park Reservation:
The appellants challenged the Municipal Corporation's resolutions extending park reservation to parts of the disputed land. The court noted that the draft revised development plan had since been published and was consistent with the sanctioned plan. Consequently, the challenge to the resolutions was not pressed seriously and was deemed untenable.

7. Legality of the Exemption Granted Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act:
The appellants argued that the exemption granted to the respondent under the Urban Land Ceiling Act was based on incorrect grounds, as the land was not vacant but contained houses. The court observed that the High Court had already considered these grounds in its review judgment, which was not challenged by the appellants. The court concluded that the appellants were primarily concerned with ensuring sufficient land was reserved for public use, which had been adequately addressed.

Conclusion:
The appeal and both special leave petitions were dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the appellants' challenges. The appellate authority's decision to sanction the development plan, subject to conditions, was upheld, ensuring a balance between development and public interest.