Published heritage listings affect demolition approvals, but prior sanctioned development permissions can still authorise limited demolition.
A published heritage list under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning framework is a relevant statutory factor when demolition or development applications are considered, and objections under Regulation 67 must be processed to completion without delay. However, the publication of a heritage list does not by itself create an absolute bar on demolition. Where a prior sanctioned layout and specific conditions already authorised limited demolition for an approved scheme, that earlier permission prevails to the extent of the authorisation. In the absence of comparable prior permission, demolition of listed structures must await completion of the statutory heritage process and due approval.
Issues: (i) whether the published heritage list and the pendency of objections under Regulation 67 could be relied upon to restrain demolition of mill structures pending final notification; (ii) whether the prior layout approval and condition Nos. 10 and 11 in favour of NTC permitted demolition notwithstanding the heritage listing; and (iii) whether the private mills could be restrained from demolishing the listed structures until the statutory process was completed.
Issue (i): whether the published heritage list and the pendency of objections under Regulation 67 could be relied upon to restrain demolition of mill structures pending final notification.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 required the planning authority to have due regard to draft or final plans and proposals published by notice while considering development applications. Sections 22(i), 43, 45 and 46, read with Regulation 67, supported consideration of the heritage list once it had been prepared and published for objections. The Court treated the published list as a relevant factor in deciding applications for demolition, while recognising that all objections had yet to be finally decided and that the process under Regulation 67 had to be carried to completion expeditiously.
Conclusion: The published heritage list was a relevant statutory consideration, but it did not by itself create an absolute prohibition against all demolition.
Issue (ii): whether the prior layout approval and condition Nos. 10 and 11 in favour of NTC permitted demolition notwithstanding the heritage listing.
Analysis: The Court gave decisive weight to the earlier sanctioned layout under Regulation 58, the BIFR-approved scheme, and the specific conditions requiring demolition for handing over land to the municipal corporation and MHADA. Those permissions had been granted before the heritage list was published, and the demolition was linked to implementation of a sanctioned public-interest scheme. In that setting, the later publication of the heritage list could not be used to stop the work already authorised under the layout conditions, though any further demolition of other buildings would require due process and fresh permission.
Conclusion: NTC was permitted to proceed with demolition strictly to the extent authorised by condition Nos. 10 and 11 of the approved layout, and the heritage listing did not impede that limited exercise.
Issue (iii): whether the private mills could be restrained from demolishing the listed structures until the statutory process was completed.
Analysis: For the private mills, no comparable prior demolition permission covering the listed structures was shown. The Court held that once the structures had been listed and objections had been invited, any development or demolition had to follow the statutory process, including consideration by the municipal authority and the Government decision under Regulation 67. In the absence of an existing permission authorising demolition, an interim restraint was warranted to preserve the listed structures pending completion of that process.
Conclusion: The private mills were restrained from demolishing or prejudicing the listed structures except in accordance with due process and after completion of the statutory consideration.
Final Conclusion: The motions were disposed of by protecting the listed private mill structures, while allowing NTC to carry out only the demolition already authorised under the prior layout approval and directing the statutory heritage-listing process to be completed without delay.
Ratio Decidendi: A published heritage proposal under the town-planning framework is a material factor in deciding demolition applications, but it cannot override a prior, specific development permission already granted for a limited and sanctioned scheme; in the absence of such permission, demolition must await completion of the statutory heritage process and due approval.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
