(1 of 81)

[CW-15150/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15150/2021

Bhanwar Singh S/o Khaman Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o

Village Jakhan Panchayat Samiti Bapini District Jodhpur Presently

Reside At 471A- New BJS Colony, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of

Urban Development And Local Self, Government Of

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

Director, Department Of Urban Development And Housing,

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.

Chief Town Planner, Town Planning Department,

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4.

Manish Goyal, Joint Secretary, Department Of Urban

Development, Hosing And Local Self, Government Of

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5.

Deepak Nandi, Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

6.

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Through Its

Secretary.

7.

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur, Through Its

Secretary

8.

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer, Through Its

Secretary

----Respondents

Connected With

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13782/2021

Roshan Vyas S/o Shri Banshi Lal Vyas, Aged About 55 Years, R/o

Near Pushtikar Vitras, Gokul Gaushala, Village Kundal, Tehsil

Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban

Development And Housing Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(2 of 81)

[CW-15150/2021]

2.

The Director, Local Self Government Department,

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.

The Commissioner, Jodhpur Development Authority,

Jodhpur.

4.

Municipal Board, Phalodi Through Its Executive Officer.

5.

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Its

Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Moti Singh

Mr. Manoj Bohra

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG,

Mr. Shrey Kapoor

Ms. Akshit Singhvi

(all through VC)

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore

Mr. Saransh Vij

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

(THROUGH V.C.)

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON

:

10/12/2021

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:

09/02/2022

REPORTABLE

By the Court: (Per Akil Kureshi, CJ):

Preamble

1.

In State of Gujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas & Ors.,

reported in (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

(3 of 81)

[CW-15150/2021]

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 Ch. II of the new

Act it is made ob