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>Land use modification notification upheld as valid under Maharashtra Planning Act; High Court decision overturned.</h1> <h3>MIG CRICKET CLUB Versus ABHINAV SAHAKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS.</h3> MIG CRICKET CLUB Versus ABHINAV SAHAKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS. - 2011 (11) SCR 141, 2011 (9) SCC 97, 2011 (10) JT 394 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the notification dated 24th April 1992 u/s 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.2. Validity of the notification dated 10th April 1985 u/s 37(2) of the Act.3. Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the notifications and the relevant sections of the Act.Summary:Issue 1: Legality of the Notification dated 24th April 1992 u/s 31(1) of the ActThe Supreme Court examined whether the notification dated 24th April 1992, which modified the user of the land from 'school and cultural centre' to 'playground,' was legal and valid. The High Court had quashed this notification, holding that it was issued without considering the earlier notification dated 10th April 1985. The Supreme Court found that the High Court misdirected itself by interpreting the notifications incorrectly and held that the notification dated 24th April 1992 was indeed issued in exercise of the power u/s 31(1) of the Act, making it valid.Issue 2: Validity of the Notification dated 10th April 1985 u/s 37(2) of the ActThe High Court had concluded that the notification dated 10th April 1985, which earmarked the land for 'school and cultural centre,' was issued u/s 31(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court clarified that this notification was actually a minor modification u/s 37(2) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the development plan existing prior to the Act's commencement was deemed to be a final development plan u/s 35 of the Act and could be modified under Section 37(2).Issue 3: Interpretation of Notifications and Relevant SectionsThe Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the notifications and the relevant sections of the Act. The Court stated that the validity of an order does not depend on the section mentioned in the order. It found that the High Court's interpretation rendered its order illegal and that the notifications were issued under the correct sections of the Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the legality of the notification dated 24th April 1992. The Court also dismissed the contempt petition in view of the order passed in the civil appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
