eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 120 of 19710/21/2011Before we proceed to consider the purpose and objects of the NCRPB Act, 1985, it is necessary to have a look onthe pleadings of the petitioners in different writ petitions regarding NCRPB Act, 1985.In Writ Petition No.57032/2009,Manaktala Chemical (Private) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors, filed on 24/10/2009 thepetitioners have impleaded Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as respondent no. 4 and NationalCapital Region Planning Board, New Delhi as respondent no.5. In paragraph 24 following pleading was madewhich is quoted below:"24. That the land sought to be acquired by impugned notifications is part of National Capital Region and theauthority responsible for approval of the Master Plan is respondent No.5. To the best knowledge of the petitionercompany there is no approval of the Master Plan of respondent No.4 from respondent No.5. As such, acquisitionof land for industrial development without due approval of respondent No.5 is impermissible. This is sufficient toquash the impugned notifications."However, in Writ Petition No.41339/2011, Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka @ Ramesh Chand Bhagchandka Vs.State Of U.P. & Others, a detail Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners on 08/9/2011, in whichspecific pleadings were made with regard to NCRPB Act, 1985. Following pleadings are made in paragraphs 41to 45 which are quoted below:"41. That a master plan prepared by NOIDA does not have any approval of the National Capital RegionalPlanning Board which is a statutory body constituted under the Act, 1985. The development proposed by therespondents is, therefore, contrary to the law and there is no approval by the National Capital Regional PlanningBoard.42. That there is no permission accorded under Section 25 and 27 of the said Act and hence the entiredevelopment conceived by the respondents is illegal and no township can come into existence withoutconcurrence of the National Capital Regional Planning Board.43. That Section 40 of the 1985 Act provides that firstly a plan will be prepared and if necessary the acquisitionwill be done. In the present case firstly the acquisition proceedings have been undertaken and thereafter the landis sought to be utilized by allotment to builders for raising construction that go contrary to the plan. Under suchcircumstances the acquisition proposed is totally illegal and is liable to be set aside.44. That town of Ghaziabad falls within the National Capital Region. So far as the development in the town ofGhaziabad is concerned, the same can take place under the provisions of National Capital Regional PlanningBoard Act, 1985 where under a Regional Plan is to be prepared and the States are to prepare a respective subregionalplans. The provisions of National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985 overrides the provisions ofany other Act. Moreover, development in the area falling within the National Capital Region take place only withprior concurrence of the National Capital Region Board. The National Capital Regional Planning Board hasalready prepared regional plan upto 2021. The same will be produced before this Hon'ble Court at the time ofhearing of the present writ petition.45. That as per the provisions under the National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985 no change oramendment can be done in the Regional plan once it is prepared. The regional plan 2021 does not cover any Hitechtownship or development in a similar form. The policy therefore, is hit by specific provisions of the NationalCapital Region Planning Board Act, 1985inasmuch as neither any approval has been obtained for said policy fromthe National Capital Region Board nor the Regional Plan so prepared by the Board contains any such concept ofHitech Township policy. Thus the policy as such is contrary to the provisions contained under the National CapitalRegional Planning Board Act, 1985."While hearing these writ petitions, we noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners thatthere has been no approval of the plan by the National Capital Regional Planning Board as required by theNCRPB Act, 1985. On 14/9/2011 we passed following order:"Hearing pertaining to village Patwari, including the hearing of interveners has been concluded. Regarding villageGhodi Bachhera and village Sakipur hearing has also been completed.One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been no approval of the plan bythe National Capital Regional Planning Board as required by National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985.Reliance has also been placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.67 of 2007, JaiPrakash Tyagi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.08.2011.
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 121 of 19710/21/2011Learned counsel appearing for Greater Noida Authority may file supplementary counter affidavit explaining theposition.Hearing in rest of the cases will continue tomorrow at 10 A.M."In pursuance of the order of the Court dated 14/9/2011, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by VijayShankar Mishra sworn on 20/9/2011.Learned counsel appearing for the Authority Shri Ravindra Kumar has pleaded that there is no requirement ingetting the master plan of the authority approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board. Referring topara 17.5.1 of the Regional Plan 2021, prepared by National Capital Region Planning Board, it is submitted that itis a local authority which is empowered to prepare plan for detail land uses within the urbanizable area. In theSupplementary Affidavit, National Capital Regional Planning Board of proposed land uses 2011 has been broughton record in which the learned counsel for the Authority submits that substantial area of Noida and Greater Noidahas been indicated as urbanizable area and it is for the Authority to prepare a detail land uses plan.Learned counsel appearing for the Authority Shri Ravindra Kumar has also placed reliance on a Division Benchjudgment of this Court dated 12/11/2010, in Writ Petition No.69432/2009, Natthi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, for theproposition that the NCRPB Act, 1985 does not prohibit acquisition of land before any approval is granted by NCRBoard and further the NCRPB Act, 1985 does not require any prior approval by the Board of the Master Plan 2021prepared by the Authority.The first issue to be dealt is as to whether the plan prepared by Greater Noida requires consideration andapproval of the Board or not.Reverting to NCRPB Act, 1985, it is to be noted that Sub-Regional Plans are to be prepared by each participatingState and is required to be submitted to the Board and the Board is required to communicate within 60 days itsobservation with regard to Sub-Regional Plans and thereafter the participating State after consideration of theobservation is required to finalise Sub-Regional Plans after ensuring that it is in conformity with the regional planand thereafter it can be implemented under Section 20 of the NCRPB Act,1985. The Sub-Regional Plan has to bein conformity with the Regional Plan and functional plans.Section 17 (3) of the NCRPB Act, 1985 requires that the Sub-Regional Plan may indicate the elements toelaborate the regional plan at the sub-regional level namely:-. (a) reservation of areas for specific land-uses whichare of the regional or sub-regional importance ;and (b) future urban and major rural settlements indicating theirarea, projected population, predominant economic functions, approximate site and location.Section 7 (b) of the NCRPB Act, 1985 further provides for Functions of the Board shall include arranging for thepreparation of Sub-Regional Plans and Project Plans by each of the participating States and the Union territoryand Section 19 of the Act, 1985 gives power to the Board to scrutinise Sub-Regional Plans and issue appropriatedirections which are required to be implemented. It is clear that unless the directions of the Board areimplemented in Sub-Regional Plan, the Sub-Regional Plans cannot be implemented. The provisions of theNCRPB Act, 1985 thus has to be interpreted to mean that there is complete control over the Sub-Regional Plansprepared by the participating State and the mechanism provided is such that unless the Sub-Regional Plan iscompletely cleared by the Board, the said plan can neither be implemented nor can be said to be enforceable.In this context, it is relevant to refer to the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Writ Petition No.26737/1993,Ravindra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1997) 1 AWC 54 decided on 01/10/1996.In the said writ petition land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Greater Noida Authority under the 1976 Actwere challenged. One of the issue which arose for consideration was as to whether under the NCRPB Act, 1985,the plans prepared by the Greater Noida Authority are required to be approved.The Division Bench in the said case has held that unless the National Capital Region Planning Board gives agreen signal nothing can go ahead. The Court in the said case even called the Chairman of the Greater Noidaand Member Secretary of the Board and when they appeared before the Court it was informed that the MasterPlan has not been submitted to the Board. The Court adjourned the hearing to enable the authorities to takeappropriate action. Following order was passed on 27/2/1996."The crucial question which was facing the Court is whether of every aspect regarding plans for Greater Noida,approval has been had from the National Capital Region Planning Board. The Court refers to the different types of
Page 1 and 2:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
show all

eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?