In a recent judgment, Supreme Court Bench stated that,"If the draft development plan is not prepared and published in the Official Gazette, by the planning authority, within the time frame, the competent authority shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a planning authority which may be necessary for the purpose of preparing a development plan and submitting it to the State Government for sanction".
The Supreme Court of India on 17th April, 2020, dismissed the civil appeals against the decision of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad in which the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the notification by which draft development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was published.
Facts:
The fact of the case was that on 07.02.2013, the declaration under Section 23(1) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966 was published in the Official Gazette to prepare revised development plan and the Town Planning Officer was appointed for the purposes of preparation of development plan for additional area and newly added Shivaji Nagar area of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. As per the Section 26 of MRTP act, the planning authority is required to prepare draft development plan and published notice, not later than two years from the date of notice published under Section 23 of the MRTP Act. Such notice was published on 04.02.2016. As per the second proviso to Section 26 only the State Government is empowered to extend the time not exceeding 12 months, in aggregate to prepare and publish the draft development plan. Though the extendable period of 12 months lapsed by 6.2.2016, subsequently an application dated 18.3.2016, seeking extension of time was moved before the Competent Authority. On such application, time was extended in two spells for an aggregate period of 12 months.
Petition filed before High Court:
In the petition filed before the Bombay High Court the petitioner questioned the draft development plan, notified by the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad on 04.02.2016. The writ petitioners contended that the said plan was not prepared and notified within the statutory period in accordance with provisions of MRTP Act, 1966. the delegated authority has no jurisdiction to grant extension of time ex post facto; It was the specific case in the writ petition that 361 public amenities prescribed in draft development proposals were deleted; about 500 hectares of land covered by forest and water bodies is converted to a no zone and the alignment of 22 roads were changed etc.
High Court’s decision:
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the notification dated 04.02.2016, issued under Section 26(1) of MRTP 1966, held that the orders of the delegated authority to extending the time period was illegal because the Director of Town Planning, as a delegated authority of the Government, did not have jurisdiction to extend the time after the expiry of period of one year, in addition to prescribed two year period. Further the High Court has noticed that about 114 reservations sanctioned under previous development plan were directed to be deleted and the large area around the Airport, which was maintained as a green belt, was recommended under revised plan for commercial zone. And further directed that the remaining work of preparation of the plan is to be undertaken by the competent authorities of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation.
Appellant approach Supreme Court:
The appellant approached Supreme Court and filed civil appeals, aggrieved by the above judgment in the writ petition filed by the respondent in Bombay High Court, bench of Aurangabad.
The Supreme Court’s observation:
The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy while dealing with the filled appeals observed that,
“If the draft development plan is not prepared and published in the Official Gazette, by the planning authority, within the time frame, the competent authority as prescribed under Section 21(4A) shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a planning authority which may be necessary for the purpose of preparing a development plan and submitting it to the State Government for sanction.
Bench further stated that, “And during the proceedings, the Government of Maharastra has issued instructions to the Commissioner, to prepare a new combined development plan for original and extended limits of Aurangabad city. Considering the period of Development Plan period of original limits of Aurangabad city and the directions issued by the Government, further action may be taken by the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation in regard to prepare new combined Development Plan for original and extended limits of Aurangabad city.”
The Supreme Court held:
The Supreme Court of India by rejecting the appeals held that,
“In this case, it is to be noted that proceedings were initiated in the year 2013 for revising the draft development plan and for one reason or the other, the proceedings remained at the stage of preparation of draft development plan. In view of the directions of the High Court, the said plan is yet to be prepared and is to be submitted to the Government for sanction. In any event having regard to communication/letter dated 15.01.2020 a fresh combined development plan for original and extended limits is to be prepared for Aurangabad city. In view of the further developments, as indicated above, and having regard to findings recorded in the impugned order that huge variations are made by the planning authority while preparing the draft development plan, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, these civil appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs .Having heard learned counsels on both sides and on perusal of the impugned judgment and other material placed on record, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India”
Bench: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Case title: The Mayor Municipal Corporation vs. Govind Bajirao Navpute And Ors.
Case details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2237 OF 2020
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Tags :
