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>Court declares Town Development Scheme unconstitutional due to violations of laws, overturns land acquisition.</h1> <h3>RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. ETC.</h3> RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. ETC. - 2015 AIR 3147, 2015 (11) SCR 723, 2015 (10) SCC 400, 2015 (7) JT 104, 2015 ... Issues Involved:1. Authority of the RDA to formulate the Town Development Scheme (KVTDS) and its compliance with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments.2. Compliance of the Town Development Scheme with Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973 and the legality of subsequent land alterations.3. Legality and validity of the Town Development Scheme in the absence of a zonal plan.4. Authority of the Town Planning and Development Authority to reconstitute plots and change land use.5. Legality of the proposal to return 35% of the area of the land taken from landowners.6. Compliance with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) clearance procedures.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Authority of the RDA to Formulate the Town Development Scheme and Compliance with Constitutional AmendmentsThe appellants contended that the Respondent No. 2-RDA framed the KVTDS without consulting the Panchayat and District Planning Committee, violating the 73rd and 74th Amendments. These amendments aimed to strengthen local self-governance, mandating that plans for economic development and social justice be prepared by Gram Panchayats and District Planning Committees. The court agreed, stating that the RDA usurped the powers of these democratic bodies, making the KVTDS unconstitutional and invalid.Issue 2: Compliance with Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973 and Legality of Subsequent Land AlterationsThe appellants argued that the RDA's declaration of intent to prepare the KVTDS lacked proper study, survey, and assessment. The court concurred, noting that the RDA's frequent changes in the extent of land acquired indicated arbitrary decision-making. The court held that the KVTDS was not prepared in accordance with Section 50(1) of the Act, making it ultra vires.Issue 3: Legality and Validity of the Town Development Scheme in the Absence of a Zonal PlanThe court emphasized that a Town Development Scheme must be subservient to the master plan and zonal plan, as mandated by Sections 17, 20, and 21 of the Act. The absence of a zonal plan in the present case rendered the KVTDS illegal. The court held that the RDA could not formulate the KVTDS without a zonal plan, making the scheme invalid.Issue 4: Authority to Reconstitute Plots and Change Land UseThe court found that the RDA's committee failed to address key aspects such as evaluating the increment in the value of reconstituted plots and assessing development contributions. The court held that the RDA lacked the authority to reconstitute plots for purposes other than public utilities, making the reconstitution of plots in the KVTDS impermissible.Issue 5: Legality of Returning 35% of the Area of the Land Taken from LandownersThe court held that taking land and returning only 35% of it was constitutionally impermissible. The court relied on the Kesavananda Bharathi case, which overruled the Shantilal Mangaldas case, to assert that compensation for land acquisition must be reasonable and adequate. The court found the RDA's action arbitrary and held that the appellants were entitled to fair compensation.Issue 6: Compliance with EIA Clearance ProceduresThe court found that the RDA failed to obtain proper EIA clearance from the competent authority. The initial application for EIA clearance was for 2300 acres, but the final scheme was for 1600 acres, requiring fresh clearance. The court held that the RDA's failure to obtain the necessary environmental clearance rendered the KVTDS invalid.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The acquisition of the appellants' land under the KVTDS was quashed, and the scheme was declared invalid due to violations of constitutional provisions, statutory requirements, and environmental regulations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
