The development plan which is prepared by MHADA for entire area of more than 5,80,000 sq. yards, indicates broadly the usages in different zones. It is well known that such development plans are prepared by showing various zones such as residential, commercial, industrial etc. Merely because in such development plan prepared, in the area shown for residential purpose, authorities have not indicated the open spaces/garden, which were already left in the approved layout in such residential area, appellants cannot claim the benefit of making constructions in the plots which were left towards open space/garden. It is fairly well settled that the open spaces/garden left in an approved layout, cannot be allowed for the purpose of constructions. However, it is to be noticed that if one wants to utilize a big plot within the area of residential usage as indicated in the development plan, it is mandatory to sub-divide such big plots into smaller plots for utilizing them for the purpose of construction. When the layout is to be approved, certain percentage of area is required to be left towards roads, open plots, garden etc. The development Plan prepared by MHADA, cannot be confused with the layout which is approved confining to four big plots, on the application made by the appellants. It is not necessary for only the owner to apply for such layout. In any event, having applied for layout which was approved and after utilizing the 59 plots out of total of 61 plots, it is not open for the appellants to plead that it was not the obligation of the appellants to submit layout. In the layout sanctioned and obtained in the year 1967, the open spaces were rightly reserved as provided under Regulation 39 of 1967 DCR. Merely on such basis, the appellants cannot claim that the sub-plots which are covered by approved layout, left towards open spaces/garden, can also be used for constructions. {Para 22}
23. It is also to be noticed that the open spaces are required to be left for an approval of layout or for the purpose of creating lung space for the owners of other plots where constructions are permitted. It is not open to claim for construction in the two plots which are reserved for open spaces/garden spaces also. It is fairly well settled that in an approved layout, the open spaces which are left, are to be continued in that manner alone and no construction can be permitted in such open spaces. The Development Plan which was submitted in the year 1999, as per the 1991 DCR, will not divest the utility of certain plots which are reserved for open spaces in the approved layout. The appellants cannot plead that such a layout was only temporary and as a stop gap arrangement, the said two plots were shown as open spaces/garden and now they be permitted to use for construction. Supreme Court
JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Anjuman E Shiate Ali & Anr. Vs. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group & Ors. etc.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6216-6217 OF 2019
17th April 2020
Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 373,2021(1) ALL MR 367 (S.C.)
Author: R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
Print Page
