| Headnote |
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Thatha Gram NiveshAdhiniyam, 1973:ss.14, 17, 38(1) - Town Planning Scheme - KamalVihar Township Development Scheme (KVTDS) -Formulation of scheme by the Director of respondent No. 2-.RDA - Whether the KVTDS provide the authority to theDirector of respondent No.2-RDA, to formulate TownDevelopment Scheme and is it in contravention to the 73rdand 74 th Amendments to the Constitution - Held: Once theConstitution provides for democratically elected bodies forlocal self-government, a nominated body like RespondentNo. 2-RDA cannot assume the role of an elected body andconsequently usurp the.power of the local authority in framingdevelopment schemes and subsequently altering the sizeand use of land in the KVTDS - s. 17 mandates therequirement of taking into consideration the AnnualDevelopment Plan of the District prepared under theAdhiniyam of 1995 - However, in the case in hand, there isno evidence to show that Respondent No. 2-RDA had takeninto consideration any report prepared under the Adhiniyamof 1995- s.14 confers·the power upon the Director of Townand Country Planning appointed under the Act, to preparedevelopment plans - However, this power conferred uponthe Director has to be read along with s. 17 which mandatesthe Director to take into consideration, any draft Five YearPlan and Annual Development Plan of a district preparedunder the Adhiniyam of 1995- There is no evidence to provethat the Director had taken into account any report madeunder the Adhiniyam of 1995 - On the other hand, theevidence clearly shows that the Development Plan has beenaltered to suit the requirement of KVTDS - This action by the Director is impermissible and unlawful - Therefore,KVTDS, having formulated solely by Respondent No. 2-RDA without taking into consideration the reports of the localauthority, violates the Act of 1973 as well as 73rd and 74thAmendments to the Constitution - Madhya Pradesh Zila Yojana Samiti Adhiniyam 1995 - Constitution of India, 1950- Part IX and IX-A; Schedule seventh; List II, Entry 5 -Chhattisgarh Zilla Yojna Samiti Act, 1995- s. 3 - MaharashtraRegional and Town Planning Act, 1966- s. 65(1) Gujarat TownPlanning and Urban Development Act, 1976- s.45(1).s. 50(1) - Preparation of Town Development Scheme -Whether KVTDS is formulated as per the provisionmentioned in s.50(1) of the Act of 1973-Held: s.50(1) veststhe jurisdiction on the Authority to declare its intention forpreparing the Town Development Scheme which in this caseis respondent no.2-RDA - s.49 provides that a TownDevelopment Scheme can be proposed for the purpose oftown expansion, for rebuilding and regenerating areas whichhave degenerated into slums, acquire and development landfor public, commercial and industrial purpose and also forother work which would bring about environmentalimprovement which shall also be taken up with the priorapproval of the State Government- Respondent No. 2-RDAhas not put any document on record, either before the HighCourt or this Court to show any assessment of "need" or"requirement" for town expansion conducted by it prior toproposing the KVTDS - Even though KVTDS has allegedlybeen introduced for a population of 16,000 per 40 Hect. ofland, there is no document !survey report to show how thesaid figure was arrived at by the RDA - Further; frequent changes in the extent of land acquired for the KVTDS by theRDA is a very strong indicator of the fact that there is norationale behind the proposal of the said Scheme - There isclear non-application of mind on the part of the StateGovernment behind the increase in the sanctioned area of KVTDS from 416.93 acres of land to 2300 acres of land-Therefore, the Scheme has not been formulated as pers.50(1).s. 50 - Whether the subsequent alteration of landacquired, is in consonance with the provisions of the Act -Held: s.2(u) of the Act of 1973 defines a Town DevelopmentScheme as a scheme formulated to implement thedevelopmental plan - In the instant case, the developmentplan is the Master Plan of Raipur planning area - The verydefinition clearly states that unless master plan allows useof a particular area as 'residential', it is not open forRespondent No.2-RDA to propose a township or a towndevelopment scheme whose land use is at variance with theone provided in the development plan - Till such time asthe lands in question is notified for residential use,Respondent No. 2-RDA cannot propose a TownDevelopment scheme for the said land - Respondent No. 2-RDA is entrusted with a duty to implement the master plan u/s.38(2) of the Act of 1973- Respondent No. 2-RDA, withoutany resolution of the Board, on its own motion, addressed aletter dated 31.7. 2006 and approached the StateGovernment for change of land use because it had to propose.the township in Tikrapara, Devpuri and Boriakhurd villages- Thereafter, KVTDS was also proposed, published, finalisedand approved before the land use was changed by the StateGovernment- Under the provisions of the Act of 1973, thedevelopment plan/Raipur Master Plan Revised 2021 that isprevailing, Respondent No. 2- ROA as well as the StateGovernment gave primacy to KVTDS and sought changesin the master plan to suit K/TDS - This is impermissible inlaw-Accordingly, KVTDS is ultra vires to the Act of 1973.ss.17, 21 and 49 - Whether the Town Development Scheme framed in the present case by respondent No.2-RDA. in the absence of a zonal plan, is iegal and valid -Held: Framing of a Zonal Plan by local authority in layingout a detailed plan of land u0e with sufficient particulars is asine qua non under the provisions of the Act- In the case in hand, the KVTDS has been prepared in the absence of aZonal Plan - It is not possible to define the utilization of landunder the Town Development Scheme unless the Zonal Planformulated by the local authority describes with sufficientparticularity the details for which the broadly indicated use ofland in the Development Plan may be put - RespondentNo. 2- RDA is not permitted to either usurp or bypass thepower vested with the local authorities for preparing towndevelopment scheme in the absence of zoning plan merelyon the ground that the local authority did not exercise itsconstitutional power in preparing the zonal plan following thedirection of Respondent No. 1-State Government uls.20 ofthe Act of 1973.s.50(5), (6) - Whether the Act of 1973 authorises theTown Planning and Development Authority to reconstitutethe plots and change the land use apart from public utility-Held: Reconstitution of plot for the purpose of towndevelopment scheme is permissible for public purpose onlyand that too by following the legal procedure of publicationG ·by the authority in gazette about its intent to acquire land- Inthe absence of the same, and also when the purpose forreconstitution of land is not for public purpose, suchreconstitution of land is impermissible under the Act.s.50 (6)(vi)- Whether. the proposal of the RDA to return35% of the area of the land taken away from the land owners is legally permissible - Held: In view of decision ofKesavananda Bharathi case, returning 35% of land in lieuof acquisition is constitutionally impermissible - In theabsence of any reasonable procedure arrived at by theRespondents, taking 65% of the area of the plot as development contribution is wholly unfair and arbitrary,· andis also impermissible as per s.50 (6)(vi) of the 1973 Act -Respondents were not justified in. returning only 35% ofreconstituted plots and retaining 65% for different purposes mentioned by them.s. 50(8) - While planning the KVTDS, whether therespondents ensured compliance with EIA clearanceprocedure from the competent authority- Held: Due to thechange in the scope of the project, Respondent No. 2- RDA was required to ·seek sanction for the project from the Central. Government - The same was not done - Therefore, theKVTDS scheme also failed to obtain the environmentalclearance requirement which is the mandatory requirementin law for initiating any project by the RDA - A faulty town development scheme prepared through incompetentauthorities with blatant violation of legal and environmentalprocedure cannot be the reason for deprivation ofconstitutional rights of the appellants.Words and Phrases: 'at any time' - Connotation of, inthe context of s. 50( 1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar ThathaGram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. |
