Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/03/whether-town-planning-scheme-are.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:59:18+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether town planning scheme are subservient to development plan/zonal plan?
Whether town planning scheme are subservient to development plan/zonal plan?
development plan without there being a zonal plan, is not sustainable.
zonal plan, and which contemplates “DP-TP”.
which does not require micro planning is binding and can be implemented.
thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
was finalized and published as per provisions contained in section 19(4).
1973. They were required to keep the land for widening of road in question.
provide appropriate compensation equivalent to that offered under the Act of 2013.
and remove any part of the structure falling within building line.
in the development plan, 1991 which was prepared and notified in the year 1975.
and appeal can be preferred against such a decision as provided in section 330(3).
street. The said street shall thereupon become a public street.
the same to be a public street vested in the Corporation.
heard to the appellant and the Corporation.
295 Commissioner has the power to refuse erection or re-erection of buildings.
mandates for lapse of sanction after one year from the date of such sanction.
all obstruction in streets. Section 323 ensures streets not to be opened or broken up.
authorities in such matters in public interest.
reference in the Act of 1956 in section 292 thereof.
power to declare any area in the State to be a region for the purposes of the Act.
and define the limits thereof.
area shall cease to be a planning area or part thereof.
with all connected documents plans, maps and charts.
plans so received alongwith his comments, to the State Government.
of publication of the notice in the Gazette.
may confirm the modification in the development plan.
plan/regional plan, as the case may be.
21. Section 49 of the Act of 1973 deals with the town development schemes.
Municipal Council and other local authorities functioning in the planning area.
may declare its intention to do so with the prior approval of the State Government.
suggestions, if any, and his opinion therefor.
as the Government may think fit.
inspection and supervision of the scheme by the Government.
or byelaw made under the provisions of this Act.
Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1960’).
cannot be two schemes for the same area.
building is proposed to be re-built, notice can be for “setting back” of the building.
of the Corporation to remove or enter which cannot be supplied by the Court.
accordance with the law hence no interference is called for.
burned down or has fallen down.
All the abovesaid exigencies are covered in the ken of section 305(1).
building, shall be removed. It has to intimate its intention to remove the structure.
burned down or has fallen down”.
removed in the latter exigency of clause (b) itself.
the power of removal with the Corporation.
34. In our opinion, the provision contained in section 307 is totally different.
to repeat it once over again in the provisions contained in section 305.
305, as such there is no requirement of separate provision for taking possession.
there is automatic vesting of the land in the Corporation under Sec.
is applicable under section 387 solatium can be claimed.
consequences which do not flow from the law as it stands.
141 (HL) at para 11 described as “heroic piece of deeming”.
reliance on the decisions in Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors.
(1953) SCR 533; Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v.
Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T. N. & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533.
implication, something what it thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity.
is gap in the provision, it should be remedied by the legislature by amendment.
“79. The court has to interpret a statute and apply it to the facts.
of the norms to be applied: he must ‘interpret’ those norms (p. 348).
correct choice could be made in accordance with positive law.
that stays within the frame”.
the legislative policy. In Padma Sundara Rao (dead) & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors.
(supra), this Court held when casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court.
Distribution (a firm) & Ors. (2000) 2 AER 109; and Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.
in the bill been noticed.
aforesaid dictums. However the language of section 305 is plain, simple and clear.
notice can be issued including the vesting part and deeming fiction are very clear.
contained in section 305 of the Act of 1956.
pleaded that the scheme under sections 49 and 50 has not been prepared.
year 1995 in which the width of the corridor has been so provided.
set back, land is deemed to be part of the street and shall vest in the Corporation.
in Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577.
agreement has been approved by the Corporation.
–sections (1) and (2) shall apply to such acquisition.
meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Authority subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
consequence of the prohibition of the erection of any building.
force in respect of such building.
selected by the members already appointed as above.
at the instance of either party, by the District Court.
costs of all proceedings in manner it thinks fit.
respect to acquisition of land as provided in sections 78 and 79 thereof.
90 p.95: (1963) 3 SCR 209; J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills v.
p.44: 1977 SCC (L&S) 253; U.P. State Electricity Board v.
1988 SC 1737, p.1751: 1988 (4) SCC 59; State of Rajasthan v.
application either generally or specially in particular situations.
derogant, [General things do not derogate from special things.
matter is excluded from the general provision.[Venkateshwar Rao v.
AIR 1979 SC 1098, p.1103; 1979 (3) SCC 347; State of Bihar v.
AIR 1984 SC 1543; State of Rajasthan v. Gopikishan, supra, p.1756].
with remedies, for validity of plural remedies cannot be doubted.
C.I.T. Patiala v. Shahzada Nand & Sons AIR 1966 SC 1342; State of Gujarat v.
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27.
Court which shall follow the procedure provided in Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
fanciful or arbitrary one as suggested by the appellants.
upon the Corporation and local authorities and all concerned including the owners.
preparation of Development Plan shall stand defeated.
it is not necessary to make acquisition under section 78 or 79 of the Act of 1956.
resorted to. Reliance has been placed on Afjal Imam v. State of Bihar & Ors.
prevail over the general provisions as held by us. Thus the submission is rejected.
authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute.
must be quick to add that this question does not arise before us.
this Court in Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 1.
the land as already discussed by us for the purposes mentioned under section 305.
where the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is applicable.
of road or town development scheme, as the case may be.
available to the citizens are declared by the Constitution.
has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law.
with the principles of natural justice, and is in the larger public interest.
planning scheme or otherwise was wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and a nullity.
to 19, leading to sanction of the development plan under Section 19.
except in such cases where the Director had granted permission.
not at all be in place when a town planning scheme is prepared.
of the land arising therefrom would continue.
over again which is final, conclusive and binding and requires no further planning.
that KVTDS is ultra vires the 1973 Act.
cannot be allowed to sustain.
be prepared only after the publication of the development plan.
scheme has to be laid down in the zonal plan.
land which could be acquired for town development schemes.
that it does not set out the detailed land use with sufficient particulars.
placed on the decision in Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A.V. Visvanatha Sastri & Anr.
its ambit as well as within the purview of section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act.
of 1956 or section 56 of the Act of 1973.
averment made in amendment application filed before the High Court in W.P.
66. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v.
public purposes has no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1.
assent under Article 31-A was immune from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.
for lack of legislative competence. In I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. V. State of T.N.
enables the State to put restrictions on the right to property by law.
the second proviso to Article 31-A(1).
ground of violation of Article 14 was also constitutionally excluded.
espoused on behalf of the appellants and on a closer scrutiny, rather counters it.
which may be required to be cured.
acquired property is not a condition precedent or sine qua non for acquisition.
concept of “no compensation” and the concept of “nil compensation”.
just and reasonable compensation and qualifies the test of Article 300A.
been specified and the principles regarding the same have been fairly culled out.
owner is satisfied he can approach the Court of Small Causes or the District Judge.
provision for the payment of compensation an empty assurance.
instance, the value of the total loss or deprivation actually suffered.
on which and the manner in which compensation is to be determined.
compensation in such cases could have been appropriately specified.
no violation of Articles 14 and 19 also in the instant cases.
sections 305, 306 and 387 to offer the compensation before removal and vesting.
possession should be taken after payment of compensation is totally misplaced.
points which were decided were capsualised by this Court in para 12 of the report.
not laid down any such proposition in K.N. Palsikar (supra), as canvassed.
is sufficient to take care of their unfounded fear.
main building is not being demolished. The submission is thus untenable.
hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs as incurred.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 V.