Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the facts of the present case the petitioners nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that it is the Society that has approached the Nagar Palika, Meerut for sanction of the layout map. It was not disclosed as to whether the petitioners were members of the society or even if they continued to remain owners of the said parcel of land. The fact that the petitioners have vide agreement to sale dated 29.12.1974 transferred possession of the plots in question to the society. Whether agreement to sale was followed by sale deed is also not disclosed. Only this much is clear that it was the society that approached the Nagar Palika, Meerut for sanction and the onus to fulfill the terms and conditions of sanction was upon the society.

The other relevant fact, which has been suppressed by the petitioner is that proceedings were initiated under the Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of the same property belonging to the petitioners. Under the said proceedings total area of 98,407.67 sq. meters of land belonging to the petitioner no. 2 was proposed to be declared surplus. In the said proceedings it is the society and not the petitioners who filed objections under Section 10(2) of the said Act. The Competent Authority after examining the entire facts vide order dated 17.1.1995 reduced the excess area to 16062 sq. meters belonging to petitioner no. 2 and 9550 sq. meters belonging to petitioner no. 3. The reduction in the area was on account of the fact that the society was able to impress upon the Competent Authority that they are owners of the property and they are developing the said property as per sanctioned layout map for residential purposes and all areas shown as open spaces and roads be reduced from the total area sought to be declared excess/surplus over ceiling limit. The Competent Authority has categorically stated that in respect of the plots in question all areas shown as roads and the open spaces will be reduced from the area to be declared excess. The same was allowed by the Competent Authority.

The approval of lay out plan as per Master Plan will not entail any compensation as there is no deprivation of property.
Direction 14 of the R.B.O. Direction, 1960 provides for compensation on layout maps. Direction 14 provides for percentage of area under open spaces, roads and streets. The said direction requires ordinarily not less than 10 percent of the total area of land covered by a layout plan relating to sub-division of land and development of any street shall be provided as open spaces for the purposes of children park or other outdoor recreational use. The direction further states that in case the percentage of the total area under roads and open spaces exceeds 45 percent, the Prescribed Authority may with the approval of the State Government pay compensation for such excess. Direction 14 is reproduced below:-
The scheme of the R.B.O. Act, 1958 and and Urban Development Act 1973 is merely regulatory as to how development is to be carried out in regulated area/development area as the case may be. Approval of the Master Plan does not automatically leads to vesting of open spaces viz greenbelts, roads, parks etc with the Development Authority, as that would amount of acquisition. The Acts envisages that after the Master Plan has come into force, private person, be if company, society or an individual may use the land or carry/undertake development as per Master Plan. The same is also binding upon the Development Authority in case the Authority wants to undertake development in the area. In case private person undertakes development, then it will have to be as per sanctioned layout map. The development carried out towards providing open spaces including roads will not be compensated as it does not amount to deprivation of private property. Compensation if any, as in the present set of facts could have been provided in case open space exceeded 45 percent of the total layout area as provided under direction 14 of the RBO Direction 1960, as was applicable on the date of sanction. The case is entirely different where the Development Authority wants to carry out development, itself, on private property then in that eventuality the land will have to be acquired under section 17 of the Urban Development Act 1973 by the State and then transferred to the Development Authority. Here in the present case the society has charged for the development of the 150 wide road and then reimbursed the petitioners as per agreement of 1984. The petitioners are not entitled to any compensation at all. If the 150 wide road is a 'street' within the meaning of the Act no compensation is payable on merely metaling or paving it by Development Authority, rather after such development it becomes a public 'street'. Conversely since the development work was undertaken by the private society and charged the purchasers/members for the road to develop it, even in that eventuality they are not allowed to be compensated as their was no deprivation of property in either case by the State or its agency. The Point No. 3 is decided accordingly.