TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Municipal Corporation must remove unauthorized structures in compliance with Town Planning Scheme</h1> <h3>Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and Anr. Versus Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others</h3> Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and Anr. Versus Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others - 1972 AIR (SC) 793, 1972 (1) SCR 408, 1971 (3) SCC ... Issues Involved:1. Implementation of the Town Planning Scheme by the Municipal Corporation.2. Responsibility for the removal of unauthorized structures.3. Legal obligations under the Town Planning Act and Scheme.4. Issuance of a writ of mandamus.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Implementation of the Town Planning Scheme by the Municipal Corporation:The primary issue was whether the Municipal Corporation was responsible for implementing the Town Planning Scheme, which included constructing roads and drains and removing unauthorized structures. The High Court held that it was the Corporation's primary responsibility to implement the Scheme. The Supreme Court confirmed this, noting that the Corporation, as the local authority under the Town Planning Act, was wholly responsible for the preparation and implementation of every development plan.2. Responsibility for the Removal of Unauthorized Structures:The controversy centered on whether the Municipal Corporation owed a duty to remove unauthorized structures on private plots. The Attorney-General contended that the Corporation was not responsible for removing unauthorized structures on private plots and that the owners were solely responsible. However, the Supreme Court found that the Corporation was bound under the law to remove structures that contravened the Town Planning Scheme, even if they were on private plots. The Court referred to sections 53, 54, and 55 of the Town Planning Act, which empower the local authority to remove or alter any building or work that contravenes the Scheme.3. Legal Obligations under the Town Planning Act and Scheme:The Court emphasized that the Town Planning Act, 1954, and the Scheme framed under it placed stringent restrictions on property owners and vested considerable powers in the local authority to ensure proper town planning. Section 53 provided that all lands required by the local authority would vest absolutely in the local authority free from all encumbrances. Section 54 allowed the local authority to summarily evict any person occupying land contrary to the Scheme. Section 55 granted the local authority the power to remove, pull down, or alter any building or work that contravened the Scheme.4. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus:The respondents sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Corporation to implement the Scheme by constructing roads and drains and removing unauthorized structures. The High Court granted the writ, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision. The Court noted that where a statute imposes a duty, a mandamus may be granted ordering that to be done which the statute requires. The Court found no adequate reason to refuse the writ, especially since the Corporation had stalled effective action for several years despite being served notices by the respondents.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with a modification to the High Court's order, specifying that the Corporation must remove within one year all such huts, sheds, stables, and other temporary structures that contravene the Scheme or in the erection or carrying out of which any provision of the Scheme has not been complied with. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the periods for compliance were to be counted from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment.
TaxTMI 