Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. I have noted the submissions of both sides.

11. Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules notified vide G.O.No.168, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, dated 07.04.2012.

Rule 16 of the Rules reads as under:

16. Concessions in Road Widening Cases:

(a) Where any land or site or premises for building is affected in Statutory Plan/Master Plan Road or Circulation network or a road required to be widened as per Road Development Plan, such area so affected in the road or circulation network shall be surrendered free of cost to the Sanctioning Authority by the owner of land. No development permission shall be given unless this condition is complied with.

(f) The above concessions shall be considered at the level of Sanctioning Authority/Competent Authority.

The Sanctioning Authority / Competent Authority may consider any other concession as deemed fit with the prior approve of Government.

12. Rule 17 of the Rules contemplates grant of transferable development right.

13. But Section 146 of the GHMC Act contemplates acquisition of immovable property by agreement between the Commissioner and the owner of the land in the event the said land is required by the Corporation; and when he is unable to do so, Section 147 of the GHMC Act provides for acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended from time to time. The provision in Rule 16(a) of the Rules, which states that unless the area affected in road widening as per the statutory plan/master plan road or Circulation network is surrendered free of cost, no development permission shall be given, in my opinion, is ultra vires provisions of the GHMC Act. Rule 16(a) of the Rules is not in accordance with the GHMC Act, and is contrary to Section 146/Section 147 thereof. It is settled law that in case of conflict between delegated legislation and its parent substantive Act, the latter would prevail (See Novva Ads vs. Deptt. of Municipal Admn. And Water Supply ). Therefore, the provision requiring land owner to surrender land free of cost merely because a portion of the land owned by him is shown as road affected in a statutory plan/master plan or circulation network or as required to be widened as per road development plan is ultra vires provision of the GHMC Act. Such compulsory deprivation of property without paying any compensation violates Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondents conduct amounts to coercing the petitioner to part with her property without acquisition. In my opinion, it would be unjust to make the petitioner to suffer in this manner.

15. Section 15 thereof prohibits land use contrary to that earmarked in the statutory master plan/zonal development plan.

16. The two competing interests i.e. the interest of the State vis--vis the general public to have better living conditions and the right of property of an individual, though not a fundamental right but which is still a constitutional and human right, need to be balanced. Therefore, enforcement of the said Act should be done in such a way that a citizen is not deprived of his property save in accordance with law. If a zoning classification imposes unreasonable restrictions, it cannot be sustained.