Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D.Dhanuka, M.M.Sathaye, JJ.
Hiralal Surajkaran Surana & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Chief Officer, Manmad Municipal Council & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6656, 8696, 8697 of 2015
Decided On : 03-02-2023
MRTP Act - Town Planning - 13, 31, 42 - The court considered the applicability of the new Development Control Rules (DC Rules) to the Petitioners' proposals for development and the sanction of final layouts. The court found that the new DC Rules did not apply to the pending proposals of the Petitioners for sanction of final layout, based on the saving clause 1.4 and the clarification issued under Rule 46 of the new DC Rules. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to accord sanction to final layouts as submitted by the Petitioners within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions challenged the orders passed by the Director of Town Planning for Maharashtra at Pune, dismissing the Petitioners' separate appeals under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, and sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to sanction final layouts as submitted by the Petitioners or to consider their proposals as deemed to have been sanctioned.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the new DC Rules did not apply to the pending proposals of the Petitioners for sanction of final layout, based on the saving clause 1.4 and the clarification issued under Rule 46 of the new DC Rules.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the new DC Rules to the Petitioners' proposals for development and the sanction of final layouts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the new DC Rules did not apply to the pending proposals of the Petitioners for sanction of final layout, based on the saving clause 1.4 and the clarification issued under Rule 46 of the new DC Rules.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to accord sanction to final layouts as submitted by the Petitioners within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
M.M.Sathaye, J. - Rule. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni waives service for Respondent No.1. Mr. Gokhale, learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with consent of the parties.
2. These petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenge the orders dated 23.03.2015 passed by Respondent No.3, Director of Town Planning for Maharashtra at Pune, whereby the Petitioners' separate appeals under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, are dismissed. The Petitioners also seek writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to sanction final layouts as submitted by the Petitioners or to consider their proposals dated 19.09.2013, 20.09.2013 and 30.09.2013 as deemed to have been sanctioned.
3. Facts and circumstances necessary for deciding these matters, are as below:
(i) The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6656 of 2015 is owner of Survey No. 344/1, 344/2 and 344/3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8696 of 2015 is owner of Survey Nos. 348/1 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8697 of 2015 is owner of Survey No. 257/2 and 257/3, all situated at Manmad, District Nashik. These writ properties were initially agricultural lands.
Since the Petitioners intended to develop them, they got layout plans prepared through their Architect, dividing the writ lands in various plots and submitted the same, separately to Respondent No.1 Manmad Municipal Council for its scrutiny and approval. Respondent No. 1 sent the said lay-outs to Respondent No. 2 for approval.
(ii) Respondent No. 2 after scrutiny, recommended sanction to the said layouts and sent them to Respondent No. 1 by it's Orders dated 10.10.2012, 06.10.2012 and 19.11.2012 for taking appropriate action and thereafter, the Respondent No.1 granted sanction to tentative layouts, submitted by the Petitioners. It is material to note that at that time, old D.C.Rules were in force.
(iii) The Petitioners thereafter, applied for grant of NA permission in respect of the writ lands. By orders dated 14.02.2013, 14.02.2013 and 11.03.2013 the Additional Collector, Malegaon, granted NA permission to Petitioners, subject to certain terms and conditions.
(iv) The Petitioners then got the writ lands measured and demarcated by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Record, Nandgaon. Demarcated measurement plans/maps were issued to the Petitioners on 05.09.2013, 05.09.2013 and 29.08.2013.
(v) In September 2013, the Petitioners applied through their Architect/s for sanction of final layout and submitted all the requisite documents.
(vi) On 21.11.2013, by a notification, Standardised Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Municipal Councils & Nagar Panchayats in Maharashtra came into force. (hereinafter referred to as 'new D.C.Rules' for short)
(vi) On 05.12.2013, the Respondent No.1 Municipal Council submitted the proposals of Petitioners for final layout to Respondent No.2 (A.D.T.P., Nashik). The Respondent No.1 submitted that when tentative layouts were sanctioned under old D.C.Rules, 5% amenity space was not compulsory. Therefore, an opinion and guidance of Respondent No.2 was sought at the time of grant of final layouts. In short, which D.C.Rules, old or new should be applied while granting of final layout was a question raised by Respondent No. 1, in view of the fact that tentative layouts were granted by Respondent No. 2 without 5% amenity space, when old D.C.Rules were in force.
(vii) By letter dated 22.01.2014, Respondent No.2 (A.D.T.P., Nashik) opined that since on 30.06.2011, the proposed new D.C.Rules were published and they are sanctioned by the State Government and came into force on 21.11.2013, in accordance with new D.C. Rule No. 13.3.11, when the land under development is more than 2 Hectare, both old and draft new Rules should have been considered and harder Rule should have been applied, requiring provision of 5% amenity space /plot. It was opined that inadvertentl
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the new Development Control Rules (DC Rules) to the Petitioners' proposals for development and the sanction....
Prior development permissions granted under repealed rules remain valid despite subsequent regulatory changes, and cannot be revoked retroactively by new laws.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the violation of principles of natural justice and the misuse of powers by the authorities in recommending and approving the In Principle Layout....
The impugned notification did not apply to the entire area mentioned in the sanctioned layout, and subsequent applications for further development were governed by the provisions at the time of appli....
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
