JUDGMENT :

AKIL KURESHI, J.

Preamble:

1. In State of Gujarat vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others, (1969) 1 SCC 509, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the scheme of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 in the context of challenge to the vires of Sections 53 and 67 thereof. It was noticed that the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 was enacted repealing the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915. The objects for framing the Act of 1955 and the difference in the repealed Act 1915 and the new Act were noticed as under:

“8. The principal objects of the town: planning legislation are to provide for planned and controlled development and use of land in urban areas. Introduction of the factory system into methods of manufacture, brought about a great exodus of population from the village into the manufacturing centers leading to congestion and overcrowding and cheap and unsanitary dwellings were hurriedly erected often in the vicinity of the factories. Erection of these dwellings was generally subject to little supervision or control by local authorities, and the new, dwellings were built in close and unregulated proximity with little or no regard to the requirements of ventilation and sanitation. Necessity to make a planned development of these new colonies for housing the influx of population in sanitary surroundings was soon felt. The Bombay Legislature enacted Act 1 of 1915 with a view to remedy the situation.

9. The Bombay Town Planning Act 27 of 1955 is modelled on the same pattern as Act 1 of 1915, but with one important variation. By Chapter II of the new Act it is made obligatory upon every local authority to carry out a survey of the area within its jurisdiction and to prepare and publish in the prescribed manner a development plan and submit it to the Government for sanction. A development plan is intended to lay down in advance the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire area within the jurisdiction of the local authority are to be carried out and regulated, with particular reference to:

(a) proposals for designating the use of the land, for the purposes such as (1) residential, (2) industries (3) commercial and (4) agricultural.

(b) proposals for designation of land for public purposes such as parks, play-grounds, recreation grounds, open spaces, schools, markets or medical, public health of physical culture institutions.

(c) proposals for roads and highways.

(d) proposals for the reservation of land for the purpose of the Union, any State, any local authority or any other authority established by law in India.

(e) such other proposals for public or other purposes as may from time to time be approved by a local authority or directed by the State Government in that behalf.

By making it obligatory upon a local authority to prepare a development plan under Bombay Act 27 of 1955 it was clearly intended that the Town Planning Schemes should form part of a single cohesive pattern for development of the entire area over which the local authority had jurisdiction.”

2. The Supreme Court noticed the scheme framed under the said Act for formation of final town planning scheme which included rearrangement of the titles in various plots and reservation of lands for public purposes and financial adjustments to be made. It was noticed that the owner who is deprived of the land has to be compensated and the owner who obtains a reconstituted plot in surroundings which are conducive to better sanitary living conditions has to contribute towards the expenses of the scheme. It was observed that this was necessary since on the making of town planning scheme the value of the plot raises and a part of the benefit which arises out of unearned rise in prices is directed to be contributed towards financing the scheme which enables the residents in that area to more amenities, better facilities and healthier livi