9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of public notice issued by Delhi Development Authority proposing modifications to the Master Plan for Delhi. 2. Consideration of belated objections filed by the appellants. 3. Compliance with the requirements of Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 regarding public notice. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Public Notice The Delhi Development Authority issued a public notice proposing modifications to the Master Plan for Delhi, changing the land use from 'Residential' to 'Recreational (District Park and Open Spaces)' for a specific area. The appellants, a religious denomination, challenged the notice alleging lack of proper publicity as required under Section 44 of the Act. The High Court rejected the writ petition, stating that even if the provisions were not fully complied with, the appellants were not prejudiced. However, the Supreme Court found that the objections were not properly considered, leading to a lack of prejudice to the appellants. The Court emphasized that objections filed within the prescribed period must be considered by the authorities to avoid prejudice. Issue 2: Consideration of Belated Objections The Court examined whether the belated objections filed by the appellants were duly considered by the authorities. The Secretary of the Delhi Development Authority stated that the objections were transmitted to the Central Government for consideration. However, there was no clear record indicating that the objections were considered and rejected. The Court highlighted that the absence of a record of objection disposal raised doubts about the proper consideration of objections. It was emphasized that objections filed within the specified period should be considered to prevent prejudice. Issue 3: Compliance with Section 44 of the Act The critical question revolved around the requirements of Section 44 of the Act regarding public notice. The section mandates wide dissemination of the notice in the affected locality through various means like affixing copies in public places, publishing by beat of drum, or in local newspapers. The Court interpreted the section's language and emphasized that the publication methods must be strictly followed to ensure affected parties have a clear notice and opportunity to file objections. In this case, the notice was only published in local newspapers, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 44. Consequently, the Court held the notice invalid and quashed it along with the actions taken based on it. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and invalidated the public notice, emphasizing the mandatory nature of compliance with statutory provisions for public notices to protect the rights of affected parties.
|
