Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether failure to serve individual notice under old Rule 21(3) and the related opportunity under Rule 21(4) vitiated the finally sanctioned town planning scheme in view of Section 51(3) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required a general public notice at the initial stage under Rule 21(1), followed by publication and opportunity for objections before the Town Planning Officer dealt with the draft scheme. Section 51(3) gave the finally sanctioned scheme the force of an enactment, so only breaches going to the minimum statutory essentials or jurisdictional limits could invalidate it. The individual notice contemplated by the old Rule 21(3) operated as an additional procedural safeguard at the draft stage and was capable of waiver. It was not treated as an essential condition whose breach would nullify the final scheme. The earlier decisions that treated that notice requirement as mandatory to the point of invalidity were held incorrect to that extent.
Conclusion: Non-service of individual notice under the old Rule 21(3), and any corresponding complaint under Rule 21(4), did not render the final scheme void. The challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The finally sanctioned town planning scheme remained operative, and the petitioner was not entitled to relief on the ground of absence of individual notice.
Ratio Decidendi: After a town planning scheme is finally sanctioned and attains statutory force, only non-compliance with minimum essential requirements affecting jurisdiction can invalidate it; breach of an additional procedural safeguard does not nullify the scheme.