Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"2 (c) "building includes-

(i) a house, out-house, stable, latrine, godown, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) and any other structure whether of massonry, bricks, mud, wood metal or any other material whatsoever".

The language employed in every one of these definitions is of wide import. It includes all buildings, buildings in general and buildings in particular. There is nothing in these expressions to show that the purpose of the Act is not to cover any construction of individual buildings. The words "Making of any material change in any building" occurring in clause (e) of Section 2 which defines "development" are significant. Even a change in any building is defined as development. A reading of the definitions of building operations, building, development, together makes it abundantly clear that development means and includes construction of individual buildings and covers even a change in a building. Then we have Section 13 which deals with the method and manner in which the land can be developed. Section 13 (4) says that no development of land within the development area as notified by the Government under Section 13 (1) can be done except in accordance with the permission granted by the HUDA. Section 13 (5) says that, no development shall be carried out unless such development is also in accordance with the master plan and the zonal development plans after such plans are prepared as required under Section 6 and 7. Thus while Section 13 (4) declares that the development must be in accordance with the permission granted by the authority, Section 13 (5) says that it must also be in accordance with the master plan and the zonal development plan. Before the plans are drawn the development must be in accordance with the permission and after the plans are drawn it must be in accordance with the plans also. Thus both before and after the preparation of the plans the development can only be in accordance with the permission granted. If the argument of the petitioners is to be accepted, there will be no scope for the operation of Section 13 (4). Further, the words "also in accordance with such plans" occurring in Section 13 (5) would be rendered otiose. Section 13 (4) and Section 13 (5) together indicate that the Act is concerned not only with the general development of the land and preparation of Master Plan and the Zonal Plans, but also with individual buildings. It refers to permission being obtained both before and after the plans are drawn. Section 14 (1) directs that application to obtain permission referred to in Section 13 must be in the form prescribed by the Regulations. Sec. 14(3) says that after conducting enquiry into any matter specified in clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Authority may grant or refuse to grant permission. Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Sec. 7 says that the zonal plan must provide in particular for erection of buildings on any site and the restrictions in regard to open spaces to be maintained in or around buildings. Section 14 (5) says that if no order is passed within ninety days permission shall be deemed to be granted. All these provisions make it clear that the Urban Act is concerned not only with the general development of land, but also with individual constructions. It is true that Section 61 repeals only Chapter XIII of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act which is styled as "development of land" and does not repeal Chapter XII dealing with "building regulations". But from this it cannot be spelt out that the purpose of the Act is limited to the drawing of plans alone. Since the Act exhaustively provides for all matters enumerated in Chapter XIII of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, Chapter XIII is repealed expressly. Section 61 (b) says that the Rule or Regulations of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act shall have no effect. All that it means is that while Chapter XIII of the Municipal Corporation Act stands repealed so far as development area is concerned, Chapter XII is repealed only to the extent to inconsistency. The building regulations or bye-laws made under Municipal Corporation Act, co-exist with the regulations framed under this Act except to the extent of inconsistency and where they are inconsistent, the Regulations framed under the Urban Act prevail. There is nothing in Section 61 of the Urban Act to suggest that the Act does not cover of the land with reference to individual buildings. We therefore, hold that the Zoning Regulations and the Multi-storeyed Buildings Regulations of 1981 are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Urban Act or the Rules made thereunder. We are also unable to hold that the said Regulations do not carry out the purpose of the Act or cover matters which are extraneous to the Act. The Regulations are therefore intra vires.

13. The petitioners challenge the validity of Regulations 9, 10, 11, on the ground that they constitute unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on trade. Regulation 9 relates to open spaces around and inside the building Regulation 10, deals with floor area ratio and coverage and Regulation 11 deals with parking places. It is submitted that there are no sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) in Regulation 9. 2. 1. And the reference to them is meaningless. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that No. (ii) was missing before the words "rear open space" and No. (iii) before the words "side open space" and No. (iv) before the words "the open space" and that it was a print mistake. This appears to be correct as Clause (iv) of Regulation 9. 2. 1. Says "the open spaces mentioned in 9. 2. 1. (i), 9. 2. 1. (ii) and 9. 2. 1. (iii) shall be for buildings of height of 10 metres". The regulations were correctly printed later and the copy placed before us shows sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii). The print mistake is immaterial. It is then said that the restrictions regarding projections in Regulation 9.2.3., are unreasonable restrictions. But we find that even the old Municipal bye-laws contain these restrictions on projections into the open space. The old bye-law 26(2) of the Municipal Corporation, projections of a balcony into open space was limited up to one meter and in the present regulation it is limited to 0.9 metres width up to 50% of the length of the open space. It is only very minimal changes that are brought about by these regulations. The floor area coverage ratio mentioned in Regulation 10 is not unreasonable. The said restrictions is imposed in certain areas depending upon the density of the population. We find that such restrictions were there even earlier. None of the fundamental rights of the petitioners are affected by these regulations.

15. The petitioners next challenged Regulation 9 prescribing the maximum plot coverage and floor area ratio, Regulation 10 dealing with open spaces around the building as unreasonable. Regulation 10 (i) deals with the open spaces to be left between the Multi-storeyed block of the building and the outline of the plot and Regulation 10 (ii) deals with the minimum space to be left between two multi-storeyed buildings situated in the same plot. A minimum distance has to be ensured between the two blocks in the same plot to secure proper ventilation and provision for movement by fire fighting services in case of need. A comment is also made about Regulation 10 (i) (d) prescribing provision of open spaces in addition to parking spaces as highly unreasonable and that if the said regulation is to be implemented multi-storeyed buildings cannot be built-up on small plots. They also criticised that Regulation No. 3 (a) restricting the construction of multi-storeyed buildings in certain zones mentioned in Appendix 'A' as unreasonable. It is said that the zones mentioned in Appendix 'A' cover almost the entire area of the twin cities with the result that where there is need they are prohibited and where there is no need they are permitted. The learned counsel submits that the total prohibition in certain areas violates Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. In the counter it is mentioned that there is no total prohibition on the construction of the multi-storeyed buildings. It is pointed out that only such buildings whose height is more that 15 meters or more, or a building with more than four floors is prohibited since these areas are heavily over-crowded and congested and the traffic conditions do not provide for accommodation for more floors and prohibition is limited to less than 1/4th area in the Municipal Corporation limits. It is evident from the Regulation that construction up to four floors is permissible in the area. Taking into account the various averments in the counter-affidavit, we are of the view that they are reasonable restrictions made in public interest and odes not infringe any fundamental rights of the petitioners. Further, these regulations are made in consultation with several persons with some expertise on the subject and in the light of suggestions made by them. From the counter it is seen that the State Government by G. O. Ms. No. 668, Municipal Administration dated 9-10-1980, constituted a working brief with some members to study the building rules for construction of multi-storeyed buildings. The committee consisted of (1) The Secretary, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department; (2) Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad; (3) Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority; (4) Director of Fire Services; (6) Commissioner of Police and (7) President of Local Chapter of-Member Indian Institute of Architecture. On the suggestions made by them, the regulations were made. It is not desirable to interfere with such regulations unless they are highly irrational. We are unable to say that any one of these regulations suffers from this vice except to the extent indicated above.