Whether court can decide question of unauthorized construction without perusing sanctioned plan?

  In absence of the sanctioned plan, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in deciding the disputed question of fact as to whether the building was constructed in accordance with Town Planning Scheme. The High Court ought to have looked into the sanctioned plan to find out whether it was for office (Karyalaya) or for residential or for commercial purpose for coming to a definite conclusion. 

REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India

Kripa Mangal Karyalaya & Ors vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation & ... on 12 February, 2015

Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Prafulla C. Pant

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether municipal corporation can issue notice for demolition if there is no sanction for construction?

 If the structures are standing from 1961-62, then they are protected structures and the Corporation cannot issue notices to demolish them on the ground that there is no sanction for the construction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal From Order No. 276 of 2018,

Decided On: 27.06.2018

 Suresh Shankar Rokade Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Print Page

Whether defendant can trespass on land of plaintiff if construction map is sanctioned in his favour?

A plan sanctioned in favour of the defendant in conformity with municipal rules would not justify defendant's trespass on plaintiff's land or his interference with plaintiff's right of easement or customary right. Plaintiffs can equally challenge any public nuisance committed by the defendant.
Class of persons protected. An individual can sue for a breach of statutory duty only if the statute imposes a duty enforceable by a party aggrieved as well as a public duty. 

ORISSA HIGH COURT

Krushna Kishore Bal vs Sankarsan Samal And Ors. on 28 November, 1973

Equivalent citations: AIR 1974 Ori 89

Bench: G Misra, B Patra, S Acharya

Print Page

Whether details about building proposals which are approved by municipal corporation can be denied under RTI?

The contention of Mr.Kamdar is that the provisions of section 8 (1) (d) (g) (j) are clearly attracted qua the application of the 3rd respondent in seeking the information in question and there is a clear exemption from providing this information. This submission in our opinion is not well founded. We have observed above that the nature of the information as sought by the 3rd respondent in no manner would fall under the prohibition under section 8 (1)(d) (g) and (j) of the Act. We are certain that once building proposals are considered and plans are sanctioned, by the Municipal authorities, such permission, plans and documents pertaining to the same form part of public record. Once the approvals are granted such information as in the present case in our opinion, is not of the nature of any trade secret or of a commercial confidence or of a nature which would harm the competitive position of the petitioner.

If the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners is accepted to be the position in law, then in that event, plans submitted for development to any authority would always remain a secret, sacrificing public interest, transparency and accountability in public offices. The information as sought by the 3rd respondent was also not in the nature which would endanger life or physical safety of any person so as to attract section 8 (1) (d) and (g) of the Act. The petitioners in our opinion cannot stretch the meaning of sub-section

(g) to this extent. As regards the submission of violation of section 8 (1) (g) that the information as sought by the 3 rd respondent is personal information also cannot be countenanced in view of our observations that the same pertains to sanctions/approvals granted by the Municipal Corporation on plans and proposals of the petitioners. The order of a permission or approval cannot be separated from its essential ingredients namely proposals and plans submitted in that regard which form the basis on the decisions and any citizen subject to requirement being fulfilled under the Act would be entitled to such information. Moreover, the observations in para 11 of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Harish Kumar vs Pro Vost Marshal cum-Appellate Authority & ors (supra) militates against the submission of the petitioner in as much as it has been held that only personal information which has no nexus with any public activity or interest cannot be provided. Such is not the situation in the present case. Also in the decision in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission vs.Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & anr (supra) the Supreme Court considering the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act has observed that personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which  would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual would fall within the exempted category unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is also observed that "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. Taking into consideration these principles of law it cannot be said that there is no public interest involved when the petitioner would undertake developments on the basis of approved plans to sell flats and commercial premises to the public at large. Moreover, the Municipal authorities are required to act upon these proposals and in terms thereof have passed orders granting sanction which shows involvement of public element as also public interest.

Bombay High Court

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd vs The State Information ... on 30 October, 2015

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1806 OF 2015

CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA AND G.S.KULKARNI, JJ

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 30th OCTOBER 2015

Citation;2016(2) ALLMR 26

Print Page

Whether sanctioned plan is public document and its certified copy is admissible in evidence?

 The document sought to be produced is a certified copy of the plan approved by the Mormugao Municipal Council. Section 74 of The Act provides that the documents forming the acts or records of the acts, of official bodies and tribunals, are public documents. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the document (certified copy of the plan) which bears the seal of the Municipality, is a public document in terms of Section 74 of The Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 54 of 2011

Decided On: 20.04.2011

 Shri Manuel Do Rosario Vs.  Shri Nivratti Madhav Naik 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Lavande, J.

Print Page

Whether common law rights of a person is taken away if other party obtains permission for construction from local authority?

In Wheeler and another V. J J Saunders Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) All
England Reported 697 also cited by Mr. Chowdhury it was stated by the Court of
Appeal that where a statute directly authorised construction and use of a building it
took away common law rights. But there was a difference between direct statutory
authority and obtaining planning permission. Obtaining planning permission did not
take way such rights. An Indian authority in Kamalakanta De and Ors. Vs.
Radhaballav Kundu and Ors. reported in 84 CWN 624 was cited to show that a
sanctioned plan was no defence in a case alleging infringement of easement rights.
Common law rights were not generally affected by a sanctioned plan.
G.A. NO. 2698 of 2013
C.S. NO. 285 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
In the Matter of :

ITC Limited V Chowringhee Residency Private Limited.

Judgement On: - 03.09.2014
I.P. MUKERJI, J.

Print Page