Summary
A 1964 improvement scheme provided a fifteen-metre internal road, but the later sanctioned development plans did not. The Court held that the development plan under the MRTP Act prevails over an inconsistent earlier scheme, even before formal variation. The High Court therefore erred in nullifying development permissions and demolition notices for want of the old internal road. The subsequent scheme modification was also sustained, while the opposing tenants were assured the same treatment as other tenants under the existing settlement.
Issues
- Whether an earlier NIT improvement scheme must prevail until formally varied despite inconsistency with a sanctioned MRTP development plan.
- Whether plans, permissions and consequent demolition notices were invalid for omitting the scheme’s internal road.
- Whether subsequent modification of the scheme defeated the pending appeals or was procedurally invalid.
- What protection was required for the opposing tenants.
Provisions considered
- Section 39 read with Sections 43, 46 and 92, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966The final development plan governs development, and an inconsistent older scheme must be suitably varied; absence of formal variation does not authorize use contrary to the development plan. (¶¶ 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, 11.11, 12.1)
- Sections 45 and 46, Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936Sanction of the older improvement scheme did not defeat the later development plan. The modification deleting the internal road was sustained on harmonious reading with the MRTP Act and consideration of the petitioners’ objections. (¶¶ 11.1, 11.2, 11.9, 11.16, 12, 12.1)
Held
- The sanctioned development plan prevails over a conflicting earlier town-planning/improvement scheme. Even if the Section 39 variation has not yet occurred, land cannot be developed in contradiction with the development plan. The High Court’s insistence on implementing the old scheme until formal alteration was erroneous. (¶¶ 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9)
- The successive development plans omitted the fifteen-metre internal road and were never challenged. The punctuated lines relied on by the tenants marked scheme or mouza boundaries rather than the proposed road. Permissions consistent with those plans could not be condemned as mischief in law merely for departing from the older scheme. (¶¶ 11.10, 11.11, 11.12, 11.13, 11.14)
- Modification undertaken to avoid further legal complications did not waive the right to appeal the High Court judgment. In the transferred challenge, the Court accepted that objections had been considered and that modification brought the scheme into conformity with a duly approved development plan; the challenge failed. (¶¶ 11.16, 12, 12.1)
- The long delay also prejudiced tenants already displaced under the settlement. The original writ petitioners must receive the same treatment as other tenants under the settlement or arrangement recorded before the Court. (¶¶ 11.15, 13.1, 14)
Result
Civil appeals allowed and the High Court judgment set aside except the appeal arising from SLP(C) 38036/2016 (Gaysons), which was dismissed. Transferred Case 23/2018 dismissed. Original writ petitioners assured the same treatment as other tenants under the settlement. No order as to costs.