The Bombay High Court allowed writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders whereby the Petitioners’ separate appeals under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, were dismissed.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner is the owner of certain survey lands. He got their layout plans prepared through their Architect, divided the writ lands into various plots, and submitted the same. Respondent No.1 granted sanction to tentative layouts, submitted by the Petitioners. At that time, old D.C. Rules were in force. In September 2013, the Petitioners applied through their Architects for sanction of the final layout and submitted all the requisite documents.
By a letter dated 22.01.2014, Respondent No.2 opined that since on 30.06.2011, the proposed new D.C. Rules were published and they were sanctioned by the State Government and came into force on 21.11.2013, both old and draft new Rules should have been considered and harder Rule should have been applied, requiring the provision of 5% amenity space/plot.
In view of the aforesaid opinion, Respondent No.1 Municipal Council informed the Petitioners that the final layout, as submitted by them, cannot be sanctioned and called upon them to submit fresh proposals in accordance with the new D.C. Rules. On receiving the said information, the Petitioners preferred appeals to Respondent No.3, which were dismissed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that in the very beginning of the new D.C. Rules, there is a saving clause No. 1.4. Inviting our attention to the said saving clause No. 1.4, learned counsel submitted that permissions granted or actions taken prior to coming into force of new DC Rules are specifically saved and continue to be valid unless otherwise specified. He further submitted that by a specific explanation dated 07.04.2014, Respondent No.3 Director of Town Planning at Pune itself has issued clarification/explanation to the savings clause, where it is specifically provided that, only for ‘completely new proposals after 21.11.2013’, the new DC Rules would apply.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel of the Respondent stated that after the new D.C. Rules came into effect, there is no clarity from what stage the new D.C. Rules will be applicable. He further argued that Rule No. 3.1 contemplates that it shall apply to all development, erection and/or re-erection of a building, change of user, etc. as well as design, construction, or reconstruction of, additions, and alteration to the building and therefore, new D.C. Rules shall also apply to revision of the development permission and building permission granted earlier under any DC Rules.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the impugned Orders simply do not consider the effect of savings clause 1.4, despite the same being argued. Further, Respondent No. 3 did not follow its clarification dated 07.04.2014. The Court observed that the Petitioners’ proposals for development were made and consequent tentative layouts were sanctioned in October / November 2012, which was much before the new DC Rules coming into force. In view of this, it cannot be said that the Petitioners’ proposals can be treated as ‘completely new proposals’ after 21.11.2013.
The new DC Rules cannot be applied to Petitioners’ proposals and therefore, the impugned orders holding that the tentative layouts sanctioned to the Petitioners cannot be converted into final layouts are not sustainable.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petitions, held that the impugned orders dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Director, Town Planning, Pune, in respect of Petitioners’ writ lands are quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Hiralal Surajkaran Surana vs The Chief Officer, Manmad Municipal Council and Ors.; Sunil Manikchand Kasaliwal vs The Chief Officer, Manmad Municipal Council and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R.D.Dhanuka and Hon’ble Justice M.M.Sathaye
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 6656, 8696 and 8697 OF 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R.D. Soni and Mr. V.R. Kasale
Advocate for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Shriram Kulkarni and Mr. Pranjal Khatavkar
Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr. Vasant Gokhale
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
