Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) [As soon as after the Master Plan has been prepared under sub – section (1) ,by the Designated Planning Agency, the State Government, not later than such time, as may be prescribed, shall direct the Designated Planning Agency to publish the existing land use plan and master plan and the place or places, where the copies of the same may be inspected, for inviting objections in writing from any person with respect to the existing land use plan and master plan within a period of thirty days from the date of publication.] (4) [The State Government, after considering the objections and in consultation with the Board, may, direct the Designated Planning Agency to modify the Master Plan or approve it as such.] (5) [The Designated Planning Agency, after approval of the State Government, shall publish the final Master Plan in the Official Gazette, after carrying out the modifications if any, under intimation to the State  Government within a period of thirty days from the date of according approval by the State Government.]” 7.2. The provision makes it clear that the Master Plan is not a mere policy document or an internal administrative guideline. It is a statutory instrument which governs how land in the planning area is to be used and regulated. The Act places the primary responsibility for preparing the Master Plan upon the Designated Planning Agency, which is required to prepare the plan and submit it to the State Government for approval. The contents of the Master Plan, as reflected in the statutory scheme, include the identification and allocation of land into different zones for specified purposes and the regulatory norms that will govern development and land use within those zones. Equally significant is the procedure that Section 70 mandates before a Master Plan can acquire enforceable effect. The Act requires that the proposed Master Plan be brought into the public domain, that the public be afforded an opportunity to submit objections and suggestions within the prescribed period, and that such objections and suggestions be considered by the Designated Planning Agency before the plan is placed  for approval. This is not a procedural formality. It is a statutory safeguard intended to ensure transparency, participatory planning, and reasoned decision making, particularly because zoning and land use decisions have a direct bearing on property rights, local habitations, public amenities, and environmental and health concerns.

7.9. Section 81 sets out the structured decision-making process for grant or refusal of permission. The provision contemplates an application by the person intending to carry out development, a time bound decision by the competent authority, the power to impose conditions while granting permission, and an obligation to record reasons where permission is refused. The scheme is designed to ensure that permissions are granted on relevant considerations, that the decision is not arbitrary, and that the affected party is informed of the basis of refusal. The deemed permission clause is also part of this discipline. It operates as a statutory consequence where the authority fails to act within the prescribed period. It does not dispense with the substantive requirements of conformity with the Master Plan or compliance with other applicable laws. 7.10. The appellate remedy is similarly part of the statutory architecture. It provides a supervisory forum within the executive framework, but it does not dilute the binding force of the Master Plan or the mandatory nature of the statutory controls in Sections 79 and 80.

11. Once a Master Plan has come into operation under Section 70(5) of the PRTPD Act read with Section 75 of the PRTPD Act, the statutory scheme does not  contemplate a permission regime where land use contrary to the operative zoning can be authorised merely by issuance of a CLU. The prohibition contained in Section 79 of the PRTPD Act, read with the written permission requirement in Section 80 of the PRTPD Act and the structured decision-making framework in Section 81 of the PRTPD Act, makes it clear that a CLU is not a source of power to override the Master Plan. A CLU operates as a regulatory permission within the statutory discipline of the Master Plan. It presupposes that the proposed use is permissible under the operative planning framework, or that the framework has already been altered or revised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the PRTPD Act. The binding character of the Master Plan under Sections 70 and 75 of the PRTPD Act, read with the control on development and land use under Sections 79 to 81 of the PRTPD Act, requires that land use permissibility be determined with reference to the operative zoning prescription. It cannot be displaced by ad hoc permissions.

15. It was also urged that the proposed unit would advance industrial development and employment and that the CLU was processed under a single- window mechanism. Such considerations cannot dilute the binding force of the operative Master Plan or the statutory prohibitions governing land use. Administrative facilitation, however efficient, must  operate within the four corners of the PRTPD Act, and cannot legitimise a land use that is impermissible under the Plan.