2015 Supreme(SC) 740

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC. – APPELLANTS
Vs.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5771-5775 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.30049-30053 of 2014), CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5769-5770 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.30942-30943 of 2014)
Decided On : 29-07-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Formulating a town development scheme without taking into consideration the opinion and suggestions of the democratically elected bodies is not permissible.
RDA cannot assume role of an elected body and usurp power of the local authority. It could not frame development schemes and subsequently alter size and use of land in the KVTDS.
Practice of the Government to raise technical pleas to defeat the rights of the citizens frowned upon by Court.
Principles of natural justice are applicable to administrative enquiries as well.
Section 50(1) does not give unbridled arbitrary power to the Development Authority. Requires study, survey and assessment of need/requirement of plots for the residents of the area before declaring such intention of the Authority.
Curbing illegal plotting is not a valid purpose u/s 49(i), (ii) and (vii).
Returning only 35% land in lieu of acquisition without stating any rationale is wholly arbitrary.
If scope of scheme is changed, fresh EC should be obtained.
Section 50(8) – Cannot be made applicable retrospectively.
KVTDS held ultra vires the Act, 1973.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – 73rd and 74th Amendment – Entry 5 in the list-II to the VIIth Schedule – Article 243G, 243W and 243ZF, 243ZD and 243N r/w section 7, Chhattisgarh Zila Yojna Samiti Act, 1995 – District Planning Committee (DPC) – Enjoined with duty to frame draft development plan for the district – Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 2-RDA not permitted to unilaterally prepare a development scheme without taking into consideration the opinion and suggestions of the democratically elected bodies such as the District Planning Committee and Officer of the Town and Country Planning Department – However, instantly, Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 2-RDA, formulating Town Development Scheme without taking the opinion of the local committees which are constitutionally authorized to make suggestions in the matter of Town Development Scheme – M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 50(5) and section 17– Not permissible, not valid – Mandatory to consider District Annual Development Plan prepared under Madhya Pradesh Zila Yojana Samiti Adhiniyam 1995 – However, instantly Respondent No. 2 RDA not considering any report prepared under the Act of 1995 – On the other hand, Respondent No. 2-RDA, revising the Master Plan 2021 on its own – Master Plan (Revised) 2021 not valid – Contravening section 14 of Act 1973 – Requires reconsideration. (Para 9, 13, 15, 16)

       2012 (4) Bom CR 40; (2007) 8 SCC 705 – Referred

       (b) Constitution of India – Entries 1, 3 and 5 of List II, Seventh Schedule; Article 243N and 243ZF r/w section 14 and 17, M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Providing for democratically elected bodies for local self-government – District Planning Committee notified – Respondent No. 2-RDA cannot assume role of an elected body – Cannot usurp power of the local authority – Could not frame development schemes and subsequently alter size and use of land in the KVTDS. (Para 19)

       (c) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Raising a plea for the first time before Supreme Court – Question of law raised upon admitted facts – Not only competent but expedient, in the interests of justice, to entertain the plea – practice of the Government to raise technical pleas to defeat the rights of the citizens – Frowned upon by Court. (Para 21, 22)

       (1892) A.C. 473 (Privy Council); (1976) 2 SCC 152; (2013) 6 SCC 278; (2010) 9 SCC 157; (2011) 12 SCC 695; (1979) 4 SCC 176 – Relied upon

       (d) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 14 and 17 – Section 14 empowering Director, Town and Country Planning to prepare development plans – This power, however, made subject to section 17 mandating the Director to take into consideration, any draft Five Year Plan and Annual Development Plan of a district prepared under the Madhya Pradesh Zila Yojana Samiti Adhiniyam, 1995 – KVTDS, having been formulated solely by the Respondent No. 2-RDA without taking into consideration reports of local authority - Violative of the Act as well as Part IX and IX-A of the Constitution. (Para 23, 24, 25)

       (e) Administration of Justice – Natural Justice – Principles of natural justice – Applicable to administrative enquiries as well – Concerned person, as CEO of the Respondent No. 2-RDA proposing addition of 1900 acres to KVTDS on 20.07.2009 – Same person, as Special Secretary, Department of Housing & Environment approving the addition on 10.08.2009 – Clear case of bias. (Para 26)

       (1978) 1 SCC 405; (1969) 2 SCC 262 – Relied upon

       (f) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 50(5) – Committee constituted much after decision to add 1900 acres to KVTDS was taken – Approval of the said Committee rendered otiose and empty formality – Concerned Officer making the proposal of adding 1900 acres of land to KVTDS – Subsequently approving his own proposal while in higher capacity – Becoming judge of his own cause – Not permissible. (Para 30. 31)

       AIR 1980 SC 319; AIR 1984 SC 1572 – Relied upon

       (g) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 50(1) – Provision empowering Development Authority to declare its intention to prepare a Town Development Scheme “at any time” – Phase “at any time” – Does not give unbridled arbitrary power to the Authority – Requires study, survey and assessment of need/requirement of plots for the residents of the area before declaring such intention of the Authority – Such declaration also requiring prior approval of State Government – Such declaration cannot be made arbitrarily ay sweet will of the Authority. (Para 33, 34)

       (2007) 8 SCC 705 – Relied upon

       (h) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 49 r/w 50(1) and 2(u) – Scheme (KVTDS) for expansion of Raipur – Norm of 16000 people per 40 Hect. – No basis – Frequent changes in extent of land acquisition – Showing no rationale – Declared purpose being curbing of illegal plotting – Not a valid purpose u/s 49(i), (ii) and (vii) – Including lands with user other than residential use – Not sustainable. (Para 35, 36, 37)

       (2010) 7 SCC 129 – Relied upon

       (i) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 38(2) – RDA, without Board Resolution, requesting State Government to change land use to suit KVTDS – KVTDS declared before change in land use – Not permissible – KVTDS, held, ultra vires the Act. (Para 38)

       (1991) 4 SCC 54 – Relied upon

       (j) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 17, 20, 21 and 49 r/w section 2(g) – Town development scheme – Always subservient to master plan as well as zonal plan – Master plan falls or broad development plans – Is prepared only after taking into account Annual Development Reports prepared by local panchayats and municipalities etc. – Zonal plan is prepared only after publication of the Development Plan – Instantly no Zonal plan made – RDA formulating and finalizing KVTDS – Not sustainable – Constitutional morality. (Para 39, 40, 42, 45, 46)

       (k) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 50(5) and (6) – Functions and duties of Town and Country Development Authority – Required to deliberate and make recommendations on seven aspects – Instantly Committee only making report on four aspects – No discussion on remaining three aspects – Report violative of mandatory provision of section 50(6) – Mandatory provisions of Section 50(6) (v) (vi) and (vii) arbitrarily made inapplicable. (Para 48, 51)

       (2010) 7 SCC 129; (2014) 7 SCC 357 – Relied upon

       (l) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 50(2) – State Government permission only for Dunda village – Board resolution also including Boriakhurd, Dumartarai and Devpuri – Declaration published including village Tikrapara as well – Not permissible. (Para 53)

       (m) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 49 – Purpose of development scheme – Board empowering RDA to provide for reconstruction, not reconstruction per se – That too not for the purpose of general housing scheme – RDA reconstructing the scheme for general housing purposes – Altering rights of the land owners – Not permissible. (Para 55, 56, 58)

       (2014) 7 SCC 357 – Relied upon

       (n) Administrative law – Arbitrary action – RDA arbitrarily including and excluding lands from the scheme at different times – No reasons assigned for the changes – Resulting in disconnected pockets of acquired land and land deleted subsequently after acquisition – Affecting rights of land owners – Hearing of objections, merely empty formality – Not acceptable. (Para 63, 66)

       (2012) 1 SCC 792 – Relied upon

       (o) Constitution of India – Article 300A – Compensation on acquisition of land – Should be reasonable – Returning only 35% land in lieu of acquisition – No rationale stated – State cannot involuntarily acquire land and impose developmental charges in the same breath – Action wholly arbitrary. (Para 68)

       (1973) 4 SCC 225 – Relied upon

       AIR 1969 SC 634 – Referred

       (p) Environmental law – RDA seeking Environment clearance for area much larger than final scheme – If scope of scheme is changed, fresh EC should have been obtained. (Para 72)

       (q) Environmental law – KVTDS scheme – Falling in category “A” – Raipur falling under severally polluted area – Grant of EC prohibited – Only Central Government competent to grant EC – EC by State not proper. (Para 73, 74, 75, 76)

       (r) M.P. (C.G.) Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 50(8) – Cannot be made applicable retrospectively. (Para 81)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants herein are the landowners of portions of land situated in the villages Dumartarai, Tikrapara, Boriya Khurd, Deopuri and Dunda of Raipur District in Chhattisgarh State. The ‘Kamal Vihar Township Development Scheme No. 4’ (KVTDS) was planned by the respondent No.2 -RDA as a small Town Development Scheme, it subsequently included the aforesaid five villages in Raipur within its Scheme. The Board of respondent No.2-RDA, increased the area of the integrated Township Scheme from 416.93 acres to 2300 acres which resulted in the inclusion of the lands of the appellants herein.

       At present, the said Scheme has a total project area of 647.84 Hect., out of which the area available for development is 610.46 Hect. While 482.29 Hect. of the total land is private land, 128.17 Hect. is government land.

       The RDA planned to develop the land and hand over about 35% of the developed plot to the land owners without charging any contribution/incremental cost from them in return for their acquired land for the development of the KVTDS.

       Out of the total 4969 private land owners, 39 land owners did not agree to the Scheme/procedure adopted and preferred 23 writ petitions on various grounds which were dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. Aggrieved by the same, six Writ Appeals were filed by 13 land owners. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the validity of the KVTDS planned by the RDA and dismissed the appeals.

       Finding of the Court:

       Enhancement of land in the KVTDS is vitiated due to lack of objectivity and non-application of mind.

       KVTDS held ultra vires the Act, 1973.

       Respondent No.2-RDA could not have reconstituted plot for any purpose other than public purpose.

       The respondents were not justified in returning only 35% of reconstituted plots and retaining 65% for different purposes mentioned by them.

        Section 50(8) cannot be made applicable retrospectively.

       Result: Appeals allowed.