1. Challenge to the validity of Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, concerning land designation in development plans. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 229
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
1. K. L. Gupta (In W. P. No. 215 of 1966);
2. Padmakar Balkrishna Samant and another (In W P. No 228 of 1966),
3. India Farmers Private Ltd. Bombay (In W. P. No 251 of l966):
4 Laxmisingh Uditsingh (In W P No. 256 of l966 ), Petitioners
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 215, 228, 251 and 256 of 1966
D/- 21-8-1967.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhury, Advocates, for Petitioner (In W. P. No. 215 of 1966).
Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. B. Naik, K. Rajendra Chaudhury and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates with him) for Petitioners (In W. P. Nos. 228 and 251 of 1966).
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Petitioner (In W. P. No. 256 of 1966).
Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas, Senior Advocate, (Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Advocate, and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (In W. Ps. Nos. 215, 228 and 256 of 1966) and for Nos.1 and 2 (In W. P. No. 251 of 1966).
M/s. M. S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for Respondent No. 4 (In W. Ps. Nos. 215, 228 and 256 of 1966) and for No. 3 (In W. P. No. 251 of 1966).
Advocates:
A.S.R.CHARI, B.SEN, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.S.K.Shastri, PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, S.P.NAIR
A.S.R.CHARI, B.SEN, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.S.K.Shastri, PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, S.P.NAIR
Town planning legislation providing broad discretion to authorities is constitutional if the overall policy and purpose provide sufficient guidance, and restrictions on property rights are reasonable when balanced against the public necessity of planned urban development.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 - Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19 - Validity of development plan modifications - Refusal of commencement certificates - Period for land acquisition - Whether the power to modify a development plan without individual notice to all affected parties is arbitrary - Whether the power to refuse commencement certificates is unguided - Whether a ten-year period for acquisition of designated land is an unreasonable restriction on property rights - The nature of town planning in rapidly expanding urban areas requires flexibility and a broad approach; the policy and purpose of the Act provide sufficient guidance to the authorities, and the restrictions imposed are reasonable in light of the public interest and the magnitude of the task. (Paras 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35)
(B) Administrative Discretion - Guidance from Statute - Legislation may be skeletal, but if the policy and purpose are clearly indicated, the discretion vested in authorities is not uncanalised or arbitrary. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
Landowners challenged the validity of several sections of a town planning act after their lands were earmarked for public purposes in a development plan. They contended that modifications to the plan were made without notice, the refusal to grant commencement certificates for construction was arbitrary, and the statutory period for land acquisition was excessively long, thereby violating their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Act provides adequate guidance through the preparation of tentative plans, consultation with advisory committees, and invitation of public suggestions. The restrictions on property rights are reasonable given the unprecedented urban population growth and the necessity of planned development to ensure public amenities.
Issues: Whether the provisions allowing modification of development plans and the refusal of commencement certificates are arbitrary and unconstitutional, and whether the ten-year acquisition period is an unreasonable restriction on the right to property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in complex urban planning, the legislature cannot envisage every detail; thus, guidance derived from the overall policy and purpose of the Act is sufficient to prevent the exercise of power from being arbitrary. The ten-year period for acquisition is reasonable considering the financial and logistical constraints of local authorities and the scale of the planning task.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- land law
Table of Contents
2. Validity of Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 challenged as arbitrary, unguided, and violative of Articles 14 and 19 regarding plan modifications and acquisition delays. (Para 6 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
3. Town planning requires broad discretion due to urban complexity; guidance is derived from the Act's purpose, tentative plans, and the necessity of orderly urban growth. (Para 9 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
4. Skeletal legislation providing broad discretion is constitutional if the policy and purpose are certain and restrictions are reasonable in light of exceptional circumstances. (Para 28 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, held valid. (Para 37 , 38 )
6. Does the power to modify a development plan without individual notice to all affected landowners violate Article 14?
No. The authority prepares plans based on the larger public interest and expert advice. Providing separate hearings for every suggestion would make the preparation of a comprehensive development plan impossible. (Para 23 , 33 )
7. Is the power to refuse a commencement certificate under the Town Planning Act arbitrary if the Act does not specify detailed grounds?
No. Guidance is derived from the Act's purpose, the tentative and final development plans, and the necessity of orderly urban growth. The authority must conduct an inquiry based on available material. (Para 24 , 29 , 34 )
8. Is a ten-year period for land acquisition under a development plan an unreasonable restriction on property rights?
No. Given the scale of urban planning and the financial constraints of local authorities, ten years is a reasonable period to acquire land for public purposes in a vast area. (Para 14 , 30 , 35 )
9. Can a statute be held invalid for excessive delegation if it is skeletal and leaves discretion to administrative authorities?
No, provided the legislature indicates the policy and purpose with certainty. In complex modern conditions, the legislature cannot envisage every possibility and must leave ample discretion to the authorities. (Para 28 )
Judgement
MITTER, J. : This is a group of four writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The common attack in all these petitions is against the validity of certain Sections of the BOMBAY TOWN PLANNING ACT , 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The petitioners are all owners of plots of land in areas round about Bombay, commonly known as Greater Bombay. They have all similar but separate grievances with respect to the development plan prepared and published under the Act. In Writ Petition No. 215 of 1966, the petitioner s complaint is as regards his land being earmarked for the public purpose of a park in the Development Plan prepared under the Act. He seeks to prevent the respondents from giving effect to the said designation of lands in Development Plan and in particular, to have the third respondents order i. e. the Executive Engineer (Planning) (of the Municipal Corporation of Bombay) dated 11th August, 1964 to the effect that his lands were needed for the public purpose of a park quashed. In Writ Petition No. 228 of 1966 the prayer is that the designation of the petitioner s land as being earmarked for recreation centre and for green belt in the development plan of P Ward of the City of Greater Bombay should be removed, that their lands should be redesignated as earmarked for industrial purpose, that the order of the Assistant Engineer, Bombay Municipal Corporation, rejecting, the petitioners proposal for construction of two factory buildings and lavatory blocks should be quashed and a declaration be made that Ss. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the BOMBAY TOWN PLANNING ACT are ultra vires the Constitution of India. In Writ Petition No. 251 of 1966 the prayers include an order for quashing Resolution No. 1173 of December 19, 1963 and Resolution No. 343 of July 2, 1964 of the first respondent and for removal of the designation attached to the petitioners land as reserved for Government purposes in the Development Plan of P Ward of Greater Bombay. In Writ Petition No. 256 of 1966 the prayers are inter alia for the issue of writs declaring that the Development Plan submitted by the first respondent to the fourth respondent (including P Ward) on July 8, 1964 infringes the petitioners rights and directing the issue of a commencement certificate for the development and utilisation of the said land in the manner proposed. At the hearing, a further prayer was made for urging an additional ground in all the writ petitions challenging the validity of S. 17 of the Act.
3. We may consider the broad facts in Writ Petition No. 228 of 1966 by way of sample. The petitioners in this case are two persons who claim to be owners of land bearing S. No. 70, Hissa Nos. 4, 5 and 6 comprising an aggregate area of 31,641 sq. yds. approximately in village Pahadi at Goregaon in Greater Bombay. Their case is that they had applied through their architect on January 2, 1962 for permission to change the existing user of their lands by putting them to industrial use and had written a letter to the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay for that purpose by which they proposed to construct on a portion of the land in S. No. 70 Hissa No. 4 a shed for a factory and other necessary sheds. Along with the said letter, they gave a notice under S. 33 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 of their intention to erect a factory shed on the said land with a request for approval thereof. On January 27, 1962 the Executive Engineer, Development Plan intimated the petitioners that as a major portion of the proposed factory shed intended to be constructed fall outside the heavy industrial zone in the green belt area as shown in the plan accompanying the letter and as the area was affected by net work of proposed 78 East West and 30 wide North South road under the development plan of the area, with only a small portion of the land shown coloured violet falling in the heavy industrial area, a commencement certificate could not be granted. By their letter
