Kerala HC: Interim Development Order Prevails Over Old Master Plan If New Plan Hasn't Been Sanctioned Yet

The respondents contend that in the light of

amendment, Section 63 has to be read along with Section 36 of

the 2016 Act, which clearly says that where a sanctioned Master

Plan already exists, its provisions shall apply until the published

Master Plan is sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The 2016 Act has been made applicable with effect from

23.9.2013. Admittedly, no sanctioned Master Plan, prepared as per the 2016 Act has been brought into force. MP 2013 was preparedand published in April, 2013, prior to the date of coming into force of the 2016 Act, but the same was frozen in 2014. The only published Master Plan that existed at the time of coming into force of the 2016 Act was hence MP 1971. Section 61 of the 2016 Act requires that all use and development of land after the coming into force of a Master Plan, shall be in conformity with the Master

Plan. Under Section 62, the date of coming into force of the plan

has been defined to mean the date of publication of notice in the

Official Gazette inviting objections and suggestions, under the

provisions of the Act. Even after the amendment, Section 63 of the

2016 Act provides for issuance of an IDO which is to apply during

the period specified therein. The omission of the words

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act” cannot be

understood to mean that in cases where a Master Plan had been

published under the repealed enactments, that have been saved

under the savings clause of the 2016 Act, it will continue to apply

as long as a sanctioned Master Plan is not published under the

2016 Act. Reading Section 36 and 63 of the 2016 harmoniously, I

am of the opinion that Section 36(12) cannot apply in cases where

an IDO has been published in accordance with Section 63.

 {Para 12}

13. In the decision in S.Subbalekshmy v. Corporation of

Thiruvananthapuram (W.A.No.1776 of 2019), which was

rendered on 26.11.2019, when the pre-amended Section 63 was in

force, this Court had categorically held that once the IDO has been

prepared and approved, it shall remain in operation until the

coming into operation of the Master Plan. The Division Bench held

that MP 1971 will not apply. The Division Bench negatived the

contention based on Section 36(12) on the reason that Section 63

begins with a non obstante clause. The conclusion of the Division

Bench still holds good despite the amendment brought to Section

63 by omission of the non obstante clause. Any other conclusion

will render the very provision for preparation of IDO otiose. Section

36 has to be understood as a provision which prescribes the

procedure for preparation, publication and sanctioning of Master

Plan. Section 63 on the other hand, has a different field of

operation, i.e., preparation of an IDO to take care of interim

developments. It is also relevant to note that the IDO was

prepared in 2016 and the amendment of Section 63 was five years later in 2021. The amendment as made, does not have the effect of cancelling or nullifying the IDO issued in 2016.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

 WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2020

SUSEELA Vs THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,

Coram: MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

 Dated: 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 

Print Page

Laws relating to Municipal Corporation

1) The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949

 http://www.bareactslive.com/MAH/MH170.HTM#433A

2) The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

http://www.bareactslive.com/MAH/MH224.HTM#0

3) Development Control  and Promotion Regulations for D Class Municipal Corporations in Maharashtra

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UrvLks1_ys1T4QaSGWIK-3rqg3rurMNq/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Whether town planning scheme are subservient to development plan/zonal plan?

The legal contention urged on behalf of the respondents that
a town development scheme can be framed pursuant to the
development plan without there being a zonal plan, is not sustainable.
The learned Senior Counsel, Ms Pinky Anand and Mr Prashant Desai
on behalf of the respondents relied upon the Act pari materia for the
State of Gujarat where the Town Planning Act does not contemplate a
zonal plan, and which contemplates “DP-TP”.
There is no dispute with the law laid down by this Court and town planning
scheme has to be subservient to development plan/zonal plan. Development plan
which does not require micro planning is binding and can be implemented.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11307 OF 2016
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.30998 of 2010]
Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare 
Vs.
Indore Municipal Corporation & Or
Dated:November 29, 2016. 

Print Page

Town planning board deciding appeal without giving reasons amounts to violation of principles of natural justice

Normally the Board does give reasons in support of
its decision, however, in the present case, there are absolutely
no reasons given. In view of this position, the Member
Secretary was called upon to place on record his explanation
as to why in this matter a deviation was made. Reply dated 24
February, 2015 has been filed by the Chief Town Planner. The
reply seeks to justify the decision on merits and states that the
Board will henceforth pass speaking orders. No explanation is
placed on record as to why there was a deviation. The Town
Planner has not even bothered to say that it is a mistake nor
any apology is tendered. It is not even the stand that it was an
oversight or it was due to pressure of work. The affidavit only
states that point made by the Court is noted and henceforth
Board will give reason.
 There is an important angle that must be
emphasized. The usual consequence of such orders is remand
for fresh hearing. While doing so, this Court has to protect the
structure, which in the opinion of the Board, should be
demolished. Therefore, if the Board is of the opinion that the
structure does not deserve to be protected, by passing
unreasoned order, it in fact extends protection to such
structure in view of the usual consequences that follow from
such order. By not giving reason in the cases of unauthorized
construction,the board in fact end up extending protection to
them.
 The Board is presumed to be aware of this
consequence. It is for this very reason that an explanation was
sought, but has not been given. The action of the Board is not
only in violation of the principles of natural justice but is
against public interest. The Board not only exercises power
that affect right of the parties, but the Board decides matters
affecting town planning, in which all residents have a interest.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
 WRIT PETITION NO. 766 OF 2013
 Smt. Sebastiana Cardozo,

 V e r s u s
State of Goa 
 CORAM: N. M. JAMDAR, J.
 DATE: 24 FEBRUARY, 2015.
Citation:2016(3) MHLJ653

Print Page