Back
2000(4) Supreme 378
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
B.N. Kirpal & S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
M.C. Mehta -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
I.A. No. 129 in I.A. No. 22
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985
Decided on 28-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, K.K. Venugopal, Parag P. Tripathi, Dushyant A. Dave, G.L. Sanghi, Jaspal Singh, N.N. Goswami, Bachawat, S.B. Sanyal, A.K. Panda, Sr. Advocates, (Ranjit Kumar) Advocate (AC), (M.C. Mehta) Advocate, -in-person for Petitioner, Ms. Seema Midha, S. Sukumaran, J.B. Dadachanji, B.K. Khurana, A.T. Patra, Jaideep Gupta, Ms. Punita Singh, Ratnesh Rakesh K. Khanna, Ms. Pallavi Chaudhary, Surya Kant, K.C. Kaushik, S.N. Terdol, (Vijay Panjwani) (CPCB), D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Pinky Anand, V.B. Saharaya, Ms. Sheil Sethi, R.S. Suri, Jagjit S. Chhabra, E.C. Agrawala, Sushil Kumar Jain, R.C. Verma, C. Siddharath, Ashok K. Gupta, Farrukh Rashid, Pankaj Kalra, Dinesh Mathur, Nidhesh Gupta, Nishakant, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Himanshu Shekhar, Jeevan Prakash. L.P. Aggarwala, K.M.K. Nair, B.S. Banthia, Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Abhishek Atrey, Ashwani Bhardwaj, S.P. Sharma, Dr. J.N. Singh, Naresh Kumar, Anil Shrivastav, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain, Imtiaz Ahmed, R.D. Upadhyay, K.K. Patil, R.P. Wadhwani, Mahinder Singh, Ms. Pratibha, M. Singh Ms. Kavita Wadia, C.V. Subba Rao, S.K. Dwivedi, Manmohan, Ms. Bina Gupta, Tapesh K. Singh, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, J.D. Jain, Rajiv Dutta, Ashok Kumar Chopra, P.S. Jha, R.B. Misra, Navin Chawla, Rajiv Nanda, Sanjeev Sachdeva, Ms. Nadini Gore, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Rajiv Sharma J.K. Das, Ms. Indira Sawhney, Ms. Madhu Sikri, Ramesh Babu, M.R., K.C. Dua, Ramesh N. Keshwani, S.K. Verma, A.K. Sanghi, Uma Nath Singh, (R.L. Aggarwal) Adv-in-Person, Mohinder Singh Bimal Roy Jad, D.K. Garg, Anuj Ahuja, Y.P. Dhingra, B.K. Satija, Praveen Swarup, S.K. Sabharwal, Ms. Rani Chhabra, C.L. Sethi and M.A. Chinnaswamy, Advocates.
ORDER
This is an application where the main prayer is that the order of this Court dated 10th May, 1996 should be ordered to be implemented. By the said decision reported as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.1, this Court, inter alia, directed that in respect of hazardous/noxious/heavy and large industries, there should be compliance with the Master Plan of Delhi which came into effect in 1990. With regard to the hazardous industry which was existing in Delhi, the said Master Plan required that the industry should shift within three years. As far as heavy and large industries were concerned, the Master Plan did not permit any new heavy or large industry to be set up and with regard to the existing heavy and large industrial units, it was stated that they shall shift to Delhi Metropolitan Area and the National Capital Region keeping in view the National Capital Region Plan and National Industrial Policy of the Government of India. The land which was to be vacated by such units was to be utilised according to the provisions of the Master Plan.
2. In the aforesaid decision, it was directed that in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan, the hazardous/noxious/heavy and large industries must shift after closing their units. This Court considered the proposal of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) which had contemplated some portion of land which would become vacant on the shifting/relocation of the industry being developed by the DDA, the balance being used by the owner for housing facilities and another percentage of land being used by the owner for residential or commercial use according to the Master Plan. This Court, however, after taking into consideration the report of the Land Allotment Committee as well as a report of Mr. Justice D.R. Khanna (Retd.), who was the Chairperson of the Land Use Advisory Committee, ordered that the land which would become available on account of shifting/relocation of hazardous/noxious/heavy and large industries should be used in the following manner :
Sl. No. Extent Percentage to be surrendered Percentage to the developed by and dedicated to the DDA for the owner for his own benefit in development of green belts and accordance with the user permitted other spaces under the Master Plan
1 2 3 4
1. Up to 2000 sq. mts. (including the - 100% to be developed by the owner first 2000 sq. mts. of the larger plot) in accordance with the zoning regu lations of the Master Plan
2. 0.2 ha to 5 ha 57 43
3. 5 ha to 10 ha 65 35
4. Over 10 ha 68 32
The Court further observed as under at page 362 :
"We do not agree with the learned counsel for the industrialists that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be permitted to them on the total area of the plot. We, however, direct that on the percentage of land as shown in column 4 of the owners at Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall be entitled to one and a half times of the permissible FAR under the Master Plan."
3. The grievance of Mr. M C Mehta is that though the industries have
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
