9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1289 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of the Town Development Scheme, namely, Kamal Vihar Township Development Scheme - Held that - The Scheme was finalised on 26.5.2010, by which date, no land had been acquired by Respondent No. 2- RDA nor any piece of land vested in it. Plots are being earmarked only on paper and such on paper allotment of plots have been done by Respondent No. 2- RDA. Therefore, we are of the opinion that due to the change in the scope of the project, Respondent No. 2- RDA was required to seek sanction for the project from the Central Government. The same has not been done. Therefore, the KVTDS scheme has also failed to obtain the environmental clearance requirement which is the mandatory requirement in law for initiating any project by the RDA. A faulty town development scheme prepared through incompetent authorities with blatant violation of legal and environmental procedure cannot be the reason for deprivation of constitutional rights of the appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the RDA to formulate the Town Development Scheme (KVTDS) and its compliance with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. 2. Compliance of the Town Development Scheme with Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973 and the legality of subsequent land alterations. 3. Legality and validity of the Town Development Scheme in the absence of a zonal plan. 4. Authority of the Town Planning and Development Authority to reconstitute plots and change land use. 5. Legality of the proposal to return 35% of the area of the land taken from landowners. 6. Compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) clearance procedures. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Authority of the RDA to Formulate the Town Development Scheme and Compliance with Constitutional Amendments The appellants contended that the Respondent No. 2-RDA framed the KVTDS without consulting the Panchayat and District Planning Committee, violating the 73rd and 74th Amendments. These amendments aimed to strengthen local self-governance, mandating that plans for economic development and social justice be prepared by Gram Panchayats and District Planning Committees. The court agreed, stating that the RDA usurped the powers of these democratic bodies, making the KVTDS unconstitutional and invalid. Issue 2: Compliance with Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973 and Legality of Subsequent Land Alterations The appellants argued that the RDA's declaration of intent to prepare the KVTDS lacked proper study, survey, and assessment. The court concurred, noting that the RDA's frequent changes in the extent of land acquired indicated arbitrary decision-making. The court held that the KVTDS was not prepared in accordance with Section 50(1) of the Act, making it ultra vires. Issue 3: Legality and Validity of the Town Development Scheme in the Absence of a Zonal Plan The court emphasized that a Town Development Scheme must be subservient to the master plan and zonal plan, as mandated by Sections 17, 20, and 21 of the Act. The absence of a zonal plan in the present case rendered the KVTDS illegal. The court held that the RDA could not formulate the KVTDS without a zonal plan, making the scheme invalid. Issue 4: Authority to Reconstitute Plots and Change Land Use The court found that the RDA's committee failed to address key aspects such as evaluating the increment in the value of reconstituted plots and assessing development contributions. The court held that the RDA lacked the authority to reconstitute plots for purposes other than public utilities, making the reconstitution of plots in the KVTDS impermissible. Issue 5: Legality of Returning 35% of the Area of the Land Taken from Landowners The court held that taking land and returning only 35% of it was constitutionally impermissible. The court relied on the Kesavananda Bharathi case, which overruled the Shantilal Mangaldas case, to assert that compensation for land acquisition must be reasonable and adequate. The court found the RDA's action arbitrary and held that the appellants were entitled to fair compensation. Issue 6: Compliance with EIA Clearance Procedures The court found that the RDA failed to obtain proper EIA clearance from the competent authority. The initial application for EIA clearance was for 2300 acres, but the final scheme was for 1600 acres, requiring fresh clearance. The court held that the RDA's failure to obtain the necessary environmental clearance rendered the KVTDS invalid. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The acquisition of the appellants' land under the KVTDS was quashed, and the scheme was declared invalid due to violations of constitutional provisions, statutory requirements, and environmental regulations.
|
