1992 (5) TMI 205 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rejection of building plans based on new building restrictions.
2. Applicability of the new building restrictions to plans submitted before their enforcement.
3. Payment of conversion charges and its impact on the validity of building plans.
4. Legislative history and authority of the Cantonment Board and GOC-in-Chief in imposing building restrictions.
5. Environmental and urban planning considerations in the enforcement of building restrictions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the rejection of building plans based on new building restrictions:
The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of building plans by the Cantonment Board based on new building restrictions imposed by the GOC-in-Chief, Southern Command. The Court noted that the petitioners were informed that their building plans could only be sanctioned after the conversion of old grants into freehold tenure and payment of conversion charges. The new scheme of restrictions, which came into force on 24.12.1982, mandated minimum open spaces and floor space index (FAR) requirements. The petitioners' refusal to comply with these new restrictions led to the rejection of their plans. The Court emphasized that no plans could be sanctioned until the conversion was accepted and the conversion charges were fully paid.

2. Applicability of the new building restrictions to plans submitted before their enforcement:
The Court ruled that the new building restrictions, effective from 24.12.1982, were applicable to all building plans not sanctioned before this date. The petitioners argued that their plans, submitted before the enforcement of the new restrictions, should be approved under the old regulations. However, the Court held that the new restrictions were legislative in nature and would prevail over the earlier bye-laws. The Court further stated that the building plans could only be sanctioned according to the building regulations prevailing at the time of sanctioning, which in this case were the new restrictions.

3. Payment of conversion charges and its impact on the validity of building plans:
The Court found that many petitioners had not paid the conversion charges or had only made partial payments. The payment of conversion charges was a condition precedent for the sanctioning of building plans. The Court noted that until the conversion charges were fully paid, the conversion could not be deemed to have been made, and hence, the building plans could not be sanctioned. The Court emphasized that the petitioners did not acquire any legal right in respect of building plans until they paid the total amount of conversion charges and obtained the conversion of their land into freehold tenure.

4. Legislative history and authority of the Cantonment Board and GOC-in-Chief in imposing building restrictions:
The Court reviewed the legislative history and the authority of the Cantonment Board and the GOC-in-Chief in imposing building restrictions. The Pune Cantonment is governed by the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the building bye-laws made in 1947. The GOC-in-Chief issued new building restrictions on 24.12.1982 and 26.3.1984 under Section 181A of the Act. These restrictions were aimed at preventing overcrowding and ensuring sanitation. The Court held that the new restrictions were valid and binding, as they were made in larger public interest and for the benefit of the entire population of Pune.

5. Environmental and urban planning considerations in the enforcement of building restrictions:
The Court highlighted the importance of environmental and urban planning considerations in enforcing building restrictions. The thrust of population in urban cities and the problem of basic amenities necessitated long-term planning. The Court noted that the Union Ministry of Environment, State of Maharashtra, National Commission on Urbanization, and expert working groups had all taken notice of the environmental and urban planning issues in Pune. The new building restrictions were made to address these issues and prevent environmental degradation. The Court emphasized that the builders' interest in maximizing construction should be subservient to the larger public interest of maintaining environmental and urban planning standards.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, holding that the new building restrictions imposed by the GOC-in-Chief and the Cantonment Board were valid and binding. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with these restrictions and the payment of conversion charges for the sanctioning of building plans. The decision reaffirmed the authority of the Cantonment Board and the GOC-in-Chief in regulating building activities in the larger public interest and for the benefit of the entire population of Pune.