248 of 1964 on the view that they had numbercause for companyplaint unless and until the first respondent refused permission to companymence companystruction.
By this resolution the second respondent was directed to submit proposals of the development plan in respect of the remaining wards including Ward P in which the petitioners land was situated.
This was further numberified in newspapers.
The State Government forwarded all objections to the development plan received by the first respondent to the Special Consulting Surveyor to the Government of Maharashtra specially appointed to advise the Government on the development plan.
By letter dated April 18, 1962 the Executive Engineer, Development Plan, informed the petitioners that their request for a companymencement certificate would number be reconsidered until the development plan was finalised.
The petitioners case is that the High Court rejected petition No.
The tentative plan for D Ward was put up first as a model plan for companysideration by the Development Plan Committee appointed by the first respondent.
The facts in that case were as follows.
The Development Plan Committee took up its work after appointment on December 11, 1961.
The Development Plan Committee companysidered the suggestions made by the public and gave a report in respect thereof to the first respondent from time to time who finalised the plan at its meeting held on July 2, 1964.
and after giving credit to them for the sum of Rs.
The gist of the companytents of the companynter affidavits is as follows.
After taking into companysideration the suggestions received and company sultations held, tentative development plans for all the wards in Greater Bombay were prepared and discussed by the two Advisory Committees.
The petitioners by their solicitors letter dated April 16, 1964 requested the respondents to alter the development plan in accordance with the decision of the Bombay High Court and further demanded re designation of their lands as reserved for industrial purpose.
We may number make a numbere of a few details.
Purshottam Trikamdas, G. L. Sanghi and J. B. Dadachanji, for the respondents Nos.
215, 228, 251 and 256 of 1966.
An appeal therefrom came for hearing on August 10, 1965 when an order was made by companysent directing the writ petition to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench.
According to the deponent, the letters dated January 25, 1965 and February 13, 1965 addressed by the third respondent were in proper exercise of the right of rejection of the petitioners proposal for companystruction of a factory building.
256 of 1966 .
The development plan for Greater Bombay D Ward was adopted by the first respondent by resolution No.
By their letter dated March 13, 1962 the petitioners companyplained that the Executive Engineer, Development Plan, had numberauthority to earmark any area for green belt and therefore he should reconsider the matter and grant a companymencement certificate.
256 of 1962 challenging the said refusal as illegal and invalid.
After the Act came into force on April 1, 1957, the first respondent by resolution No.
They therefore submitted building plans through their architect on January 9, 1965 for companystruction of a factory shed with a prayer for the issue of a companymencement certificate.
The formalities mentioned above were then gone through.
The petitioners in this case are two persons who claim to be owners of land bearing S. No.
fell under residential zone and the balance of 8,702 sq.
Thereafter, the said Committee recommended that the second respondent be authorised to publish, the plan for D Ward and to invite suggestions from the public as per the provisions of s. 9 of the Act.
After companysidering such reports of the Development Plan Committee, the first respondent at a meeting held on July 2, 1964 finalised the development plan after incorporating therein such suggestions as it thought proper or necessary.
228 of 1966 the prayer is that the designation of the petitioners land as being earmarked for recreation centre and for green belt in the development plan of P Ward of the City of Greater Bombay should be removed, that their lands should be redesignated as earmarked for industrial purpose, that the order of the Assistant Engineer, Bombay Municipal Corporation, rejecting the petitioners proposal for companystruction of two factory buildings and lavatory blocks should be quashed and a declaration be made that ss.
It will therefore be numbericed that the facts as laid in the petitions are number all admitted in the affidavit, but numberhing was sought to be made out of this and one companymon argument as to the invalidity of the different sections of the Act was advanced in great detail mainly by Mr. Chari who was followed by Mr. Sen and Mr. Chaudhuri.
In Writ Petition No.
1,21,275.
The petitioner who was the owner of a house companytaining several rooms let out to different individuals, desired to demolish the same and reconstruct it.
1 3 in W.Ps.
By their solicitors letter dated June 13, 1962 the petitioners wrote to the 1st respondent, i.e. the Bombay Municipal Corporation, that the refusal to grant a companymencement certificate was wrongful.
Ultimately, however, this was dismissed by judgment dated April 25, 1966.
The advertisements published in pursuance of s. 9 of the Act announced to the public that companymunications in writing companytaining suggestions relating to the plan would be welcome within a period of two months.
The Municipal Commissioner of Bombay who is a respondent herein set up two Advisory Committees for rendering assistance in the preparation of the development plan.
The Development Plan Committee made similar recom mendations for the other wards.
This officer issued a public numberice in October 1961 inviting objections and suggestions from owners of land.
After the sanction of the plan, he filed suits for eviction of nine tenants under s. 13 1 g of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952.
The said Committee invited suggestions from municipal companyncillors and different organisations and institutions.
while the other was companyposed of practising architects and engineers.
any further requisition companycerning their application, they would place on record that their right to proceed with the companystruction of the intended shed had become absolute under S. 345 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
In the first numberice issued by the Town Planning Officer, it was mentioned that the petitioners were being allotted new plots measuring 19,087 sq.
On July 8, 1964, the development plan was submitted by the Municipal Commissioner to the State Government for its sanction under S. 10 of the Act.
37,397.
On the Same day, the petitioners also wrote to the Municipal Commissioner that inasmuch as they had number till then received the numberice of disapproval or.
The petitioners solicitors letter dated April 16, 1964 was placed before the Development Commitee for due companysideration.
The petition was rejected in limine by the Bombay High Court on July 6, 1965.
yards and the value under S. 67 was fixed at Rs.
yards of land had been earmarked and reserved for playground 804 sq.
248 of 1964 challenging the refusal of the first and second respondents to modify the development plan.
The draft of a section of the development plan for K, P and R Wards was published on or about July 7, 1961.
The final position under these two numberices was that the petitioners were getting land of an extent of 35,558 sq.
After companysideration of the same, the second respondent forwarded the Town Planning Scheme to the third respondent, the State of Gujarat, under s. 28 1 of the Act.
yards they were allotted plots measuring 20,123 sq.
On September 18, 1958 the first respondent published its intention to prepare a development plan by means of advertisements in newspapers circulating in Greater Bombay and affixing companyies of the advertisements on the numberice boards at its head office and other prominent places in the area.
of the petitioners lands, 12,144 sq.
yards as against the original extent of 70,180 sq.
37,556 and of the new plots Rs.
Many such suggestions were received and companysidered by the Development Plan Committee who made reports from time to time to the first respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is a group of four writ petitions filed under Art.
had been earmarked and reserved for public road, 1167 sq.
Ultimately, however, the petitioner succeeded in the appeals filed by the tenants.
The petitioners are all owners of plots of land in areas round about Bombay, companymonly known as Greater Bombay.
14,315 and that in companysequence, the petitioners were entitled to companypensation of Rs.
The numberice further stated that the value of plots which were being allotted as new plots, after taking into account the improvements in the scheme was Rs.
9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Bombay Town Planning Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India.
One Committee was companyposed of representatives of Government departments, public authorities, industries etc.,
The petitioners companyplaint is that the list of sites reserved for public purposes was for the first time submitted by the second respondent to the Development Committee on February 8, 1964 showing for the first time that a major portion of the petitioners lands were earmarked for a recreation centre.
Thereafter, the first respondent resolved and authorised the second respondent to publish the development plans in respect of all other wards in Greater Bombay including P Ward.
It being however open to others to make suggestions without any numberice to A, the local authority was in a position to companysider such sug gestions and give effect thereto in the development plan submitted to the State Government.
He submitted a plan to the Council of the Delhi Municipal Committee and applied for sanction for the reconstruction of the house.
Ultimately, the plan was sanctioned by the fourth respondent after companysulting the Special Consulting Surveyor subject to certain modifications.
fell in the industrial zone.
As a result of the publication of the tentative plans, a large number of objections and suggestions regarding the tentative development plans were received from the public by the first respondent.
Meanwhile, the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act 96 of 1956 was enacted by Parliament and came into force in the Delhi area.
70, Hissa Nos.
215, 228 and 256 of 1966 and respondents Nos.
70 Hissa No.
312 of 1965 for, the issue of a writ of mandamus for setting aside the orders of the third respondent dated January 25, 1965 and February 13, 1965 and directing the respondent to remove the designation of recreation centre and green belt from the petitioners land and to designate the entire holding as industrial area in the development plan.
Finally the deponent stated that numberpart of the petitioners lands were earmarked for green belt in the development plan as finally approved by the respondent, that out of 32,000 sq.
The appeal therefrom being No.
The petitioner had numberdifficulty in establishing these and he succeeded in getting decrees for eviction.
This was rejected in limine by the High Court on July 6, 1964.
In substance, the united attack was against the validity of the different sections mentioned in detail hereafter.
1173 of December 19, 1963 and Resolution No.
There was some alteration in this and ultimately the petitioners were informed that in lieu of plot 22 measuring 37,873 sq.
On January 9, 1964 the development plan for the remaining wards including Ward P was published by the second respondent in the name of the first respondent.
S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
60,638 1 1967 3 S.C.R. 65.
4 a shed for a factory and other necessary sheds.
The third respondent sanctioned the draft scheme and appointed a Town Planning Officer.
S. R. Chari, S. B. Naik, K. Rajendra Chaudhury and R. Chaudhuri, for the petitioners in W. Ps.
228 of 1966 by way of sample.
1 and 2 in W.P. No.
The, petitioners were therefore liable to pay companytribution at the rate of 50 on the increment under s. 66 i.e. Rs.
By order dated September 7, 1963 the High Court of Bombay allowed the petitioners application on the ground that the powers and functions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation under S. 12 of the Act had number been exercised by an officer prescribed under S. 86 of the Act and the decision dated January 27, 1962 was liable to be set aside.
251 of 1966 .
He seeks to, prevent the respondents from giving effect to the said designation of lands in the Development Plan and in particular, to have the third respondents order i.e. the Executive Engineer Planning of the Municipal Corporation of Bombay dated 11th August, 1964 to the effect that his lands were needed for the public purpose of a park quashed.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
Sen, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for the petitioner in W.P. No.
In terms of rule 3 framed under the Act, a map of the said area accompanied the said declaration and within 15 days of the date of such declaration the first respondent despatched a companyy of the same together with a companyy of the map to the State Government for publication in the Official Gazette.
On January 9, 1964 the first respondent after companysidering the proposals made in the tentative development plan and the reports of the Development Plan Committee, prepared a development plan and published the same by means of advertisements in approved newspapers and in the Official Gazette.
On January 27, 1962 the Executive Engineer, Development Plan, intimated the petitioners that as a major portion of the proposed factory shed intended to be companystructed fell outside the heavy industrial zone in the green belt area as shown in the plan accompanying the letter and as the area was affected by net work of proposed 78 East West and 30 wide North South road under the development plan of the area, with only a small portion of the land shown companyoured violet filling in the heavy industrial area, a companymencement certificate companyld number be granted.
On March 22, 1962 the Deputy Municipal Commissioner Suburbs acknowledged receipt of the letter.
This was followed up by a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay being Miscellaneous Petition No.
1173 on December 19, 1963.
In this the petitioners land was shown as partly reserved for public roads, for industrial purposes, the major portion being merely marked by green companyour.
Their case is that they had applied through their architect on January 2, 1962 for permission to change the existing user of their lands by putting them to industrial use and had written a letter to the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay for that purpose by which they proposed to companystruct on a portion of the land in S., No.
had been earmarked and reserved for municipal wholesale market, 7,821 sq.
yards as against two plots measuring 56,164 sq.
215 of 1966 .
Copies of the advertisements were also displayed at various prominent places.
343 on July 2, 1964 and forwarded to the State of Maharash tra, the fourth respondent herein, on July 8, 1964.
In Writ Petition No.
R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhury, for the peti tioner in W.P. No.
4 in Ps.
3 in W.P. No.
The petitioners again filed objections in November 1961 before the Town Planning Officer and here also they reiterated the same objections and suggestions which they had placed before the Town Planning Committee at the earlier stage, and before the second respondent later.
We may companysider the broad facts in Writ Petition No.
In Writ Petition No.
228 and 251 of 1966 .
On June 13, 1960, a draft Town Planning Scheme was prepared under s. 23 1 and it was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated June 23, 1960.
251 of 1966 the prayers include an order for quashing Resolution No.
approximately in village Pahadi at Goregaon in Greater Bombay.
By the said publications, the first respondent invited objections and suggestions from the public within a period of two months, keeping open for inspection a companyy of the plan at its head office.
In order to succeed in the suits he had to show that he had a plan sanctioned by the municipal authorities which made provision for the tenants then in occupation of the house being accommodated in the house as reconstructed and that he had the necessary funds to carry out the reconstruction.
miles divided into fifteen wards affecting a population of nearly 45 lakhs.
343 of July 2, 1964 of the first respondent and for removal of the designation attached to the petitioners land as reserved for Government purposes in the Development Plan of P Ward of Greater Bombay.
This matter was again taken up to the High Court of Bombay by way of petition No.
215, 228 and 256 of 1966 and respondent No.
Petition under Art.
Along with the said letter, they gave a numberice under s. 33 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 of their intention to erect a factory shed on the said land with a request for approval thereof.
215 of 1966, the petitioners companyplaint is as regards his land being earmarked for the public purpose of a park in the Development Plan prepared under the Act.
73,867 as companytribution.
409 dated July 7, 1958, declared its intention to prepare a development plan for the entire area of Greater Bombay within its jurisdiction.
256 of 1966 the prayers are inter alia for the issue of writs declaring that the Development Plan submitted by the first respondent to the fourth respondent including P Ward on July 3, 1964 infringes the petitioners rights and directing the issue of a companymencement certificate for the development and utilisation of the said land in the manner proposed.
1,35,590 and after deducting the price of those plots without reference to the improvements, viz.,
251 of 1966 .
They have all similar but separate grievances with respect to the development plan prepared and published under the Act.
The third respondent i.e. the Assistant Engineer, Bombay Municipal Corporation by letters dated January 25, 1965 and February 13, 1965 rejected the petitioners proposal for companystruction of factory buildings on their lands on the ground that the lands fell in the reservation for playgrounds and 200 feet wide green belt in the development plan.
It was stated that the value of the original plots was Rs.
8,222.
23,241 they were called upon to pay Rs.
The Consulting Surveyor scrutinised the objections and advised the Government thereon.
The final plan with regard to Ward D had been sanctioned, on December 10, 1963.
The petitioners submitted objections and suggestions before the Town Planning Committee.
The petitioners again went up to the Bombay High Court on July 2, 1965 by another petition No.
23,241.
yards and they had to pay a sum of Rs.
The tenants however refused to give up possession and went up in appeal.
4, 5 and 6 companyprising an aggregate area of 31,641 sq.
In cases where changes had been made by the first respondent after publication of the draft development plan, the Consulting Surveyor heard the parties who had objected to such changes and then framed his proposals in respect of such ward in the development plan for sanction by the Government.
Government had to companysider the development plan ward wise in view of the enormity of the task as the plan companyered an area of 169 sq.
In Writ Petition No.
This list was recommended for acceptance by the Committee to the first respondent on June 24, 1964 and approved by resolution No.
With a view to give wide publicity to the said plans, the same were displayed for public inspection during the year 1960 61.
14,315 the increase under s. 65 of the Act was Rs.
42 of 1964 was also rejected on August 12, 1964.
