MRTP ACT 1966-The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966: Controlling Urban Sprawl- Part 1

OBJECTIVES OF MRTP ACT, 1966

The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 was enacted to address certain defects and deficiencies in the previous Bombay Town Planning Act of 1954. The Act required every local authority to prepare a development plan for the area within its jurisdiction, allowing for the allocation of land for different uses and the reservation of sites required for public purposes. The development plan proposals were executed by local authorities through either compulsory land acquisition or the preparation and execution of town planning schemes for different parts of the town.

However, some issues with the previous Act were noticed in practice. For instance, the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, only made planning of land possible within the areas of local authorities, with no provision for controlling the development of land in important peripheral areas outside municipal limits. As a result, there was no effective control over the planning and development of land in these peripheral areas, leading to uncontrolled and haphazard growth and development. These issues were particularly apparent in the vast areas outside Greater Bombay, Poona, and other important urban centers.

To address these problems, the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 introduced certain new provisions considered essential for planning and developing land as comprehensively and effectively as possible. One of the most significant changes was the introduction of regional planning. The Act recognized the need to plan and exercise effective control over the use and development of land, not only within urban centers but also in the surrounding areas that come within the social and economic influence of these urban centers.

The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 established Regional Planning Boards for specified regions that would prepare regional plans for the development and use of land in these regions. The work of executing these regional plans was left to Planning Authorities, Special Planning Authorities, and New Development Authorities.

The Act recognized the importance of comprehensive regional planning to facilitate the proper planning of extensive areas of land called Regions, having common physical, social, and economic problems. Such comprehensive planning would allow for the distribution of population and industries, the preservation of good agricultural lands, the reservation of green belts, and the preservation of areas of natural scenery. The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 provided the necessary legal framework to support such comprehensive regional planning.

Broadly, the objective of the MRTP act 1966 is to regularize the establishment and expansion of cities and to provide a complete mechanism for urban development. the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 was a crucial piece of legislation that aimed to address deficiencies in the previous Bombay Town Planning Act, introduce new provisions for comprehensive planning, and establish regional planning boards to support planning in the surrounding areas of urban centers. The Act recognized the importance of comprehensive planning to address the growing and haphazard development of land and provided a legal framework to support such planning efforts.

The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 aims to improve the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954, specifically in the preparation and execution of development plans. The Act requires each Planning Authority to appoint a Town Planning Officer responsible for conducting surveys, preparing land-use maps, and developing proposals for the Development Plan within the framework of the Regional Plan (if one exists), for the consideration of the Planning Authority.

The State Government is authorized to appoint an Officer to prepare, publish, and submit a Development Plan to the State Government for approval, in case a Planning Authority fails to do so. The Act also provides for the preparation and publication of an interim Development Plan, which will act as a guide for both the public and Planning Authority in granting permission for the use and development of land, pending the preparation and publication of the draft development plan.

The Planning Authority is also empowered to prepare plans for areas of comprehensive development after the publication of the draft Development plan. In addition, the State Government is authorized to establish a Special Planning Authority for any area in the State where necessary, for the purpose of preparing and executing the development plan.

In summary, the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 introduces several provisions to enhance the preparation and execution of development plans, including the appointment of Town Planning Officers, the preparation of an interim Development Plan, the establishment of a Special Planning Authority, and the State Government’s authority to appoint an Officer to prepare, publish, and submit a Development Plan.

The Objects and Reasons of an Act are the statements of intent and purpose that explain the rationale behind the enactment of a statute. These statements reflect the legislative intent and guide the interpretation of the provisions of the Act. The purpose of the Objects and Reasons is to provide the context and background for the legislation and help in understanding its scope and purpose.

In the case of Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that in case of doubt, the court should rely on the Objects and Reasons of the Act rather than the debates in Parliament on the Bill. The court reasoned that the debates in Parliament may not always provide a clear picture of the legislative intent, and that the Objects and Reasons are a more reliable source for understanding the purpose and scope of the Act.

Similarly, in the case of Chern Taon Shang v. Commander S.D.Baijal, the Supreme Court held that the Objects and Reasons of an Act are a legitimate aid to construction and should be used to ascertain the true intent and purpose of the legislation. The court observed that the Objects and Reasons provide valuable insights into the social, economic, and political background that led to the enactment of the legislation, and help in determining the scope and applicability of the provisions of the Act.

In Telco v. State of Mah., the High Court held that while interpreting the provisions of a statute, the Objects and Reasons of the Act should be taken into consideration. However, this should only be done when the words of the section are ambiguous. The statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be used to interpret unambiguous words of a section.

The case of Subhash R. Bind @ Vakil v. State of Mah. Clarified that even when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Objects and Reasons of the Act can still be looked into for a limited purpose in cases of urgent need. The court can examine the Object and Reasons to determine the conditions that prompted the introduction of the Act and the extent of remedying the existing evil.

In other words, if a situation arises where a strict and literal interpretation of the statute would lead to an absurd or unjust outcome, the court may look into the Object and Reasons of the Act to determine the intention of the legislature. However, this can only be done in exceptional circumstances, where the need is urgent and the situation is such that it requires immediate attention.

The court in this case emphasized that the Object and Reasons cannot be used to interpret unambiguous words of a section. It can only be used to interpret provisions of the statute where there is ambiguity, or when there is a need to resolve a conflict between two provisions.

Therefore, while the court can use the Object and Reasons of the Act to aid in the interpretation of the provisions, it should be done with caution and only in limited circumstances where it is necessary to achieve the purpose of the legislation.

PREAMBLE

 The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act has been enacted to provide for planning and development of land in regions designated for that purpose. The Act also aims to create regional planning boards, make better provisions for development plans and ensure that town planning schemes are made in the proper manner and their execution is made effective. The creation of new towns by means of development authorities and provisions for compulsory acquisition of land required for public purposes are also covered under the Act. The preamble of the MRTP Act specifies these provisions and other related matters.

In the case of Girish Vyas & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Supreme Court observed that the Act’s primary objective is to ensure planned development of the designated regions. The Act’s provisions are interconnected and designed to achieve the purpose of planned development. The creation of regional planning boards and provisions for development plans and town planning schemes are essential to carry out planned development effectively.

The Act also makes provisions for the creation of new towns through development authorities, which is crucial for providing adequate infrastructure and resources to support the growing population. The compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes is also covered under the Act, which is essential for planned development.

The Court noted that the Act’s provisions are designed to address the modern challenges of urbanization and provide solutions for modern welfare activities. The Act’s provisions are necessary to achieve the objectives of planned development, and their absence can frustrate or defeat these objectives. Therefore, the Court held that the Act’s provisions, including those related to compulsory acquisition of land, must be read harmoniously and construed accordingly to ensure effective planned development.

Also Read: https://legalreferencer.in/environmental-laws-in-india-upsc-a-upsc-primer/

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE

When interpreting a statute, the plain and ordinary meaning of the words is generally given, and only if this leads to an absurdity, then a purposive interpretation can be used. This was affirmed in the case of Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh and Another v. State of Maharashtra And Others in 2017.

However, there are exceptions to the rule of legislation by reference. For instance, legislation by reference should not result in defeating the object and purpose of the later Act. It is important to note that the above exceptions to the doctrine of legislation by reference are not exhaustive but merely indicative. It is possible that other exceptions to this doctrine exist, and it is difficult to state all such exceptions with precision. Defining such exceptions with exactitude will not aid the ends of justice.

when interpreting a statute, the plain and ordinary meaning of the words is usually given unless this leads to an absurd result. However, when legislation by reference is used, it should not defeat the purpose of the later Act, nor should it create an irresolvable conflict or destroy the essence and purpose of the principal Act. While there may be other exceptions to the doctrine of legislation by reference, they are difficult to state with precision, and defining them exactly will not necessarily aid the ends of justice.

The preamble of a statute is an introductory statement that outlines the objectives and purposes of the Act. However, it is not an operative part of the statute and cannot override the express provisions of the Act. The cardinal principle of construction is that where the language of an Act is clear, the preamble must be disregarded. It is only when the object or meaning of an enactment is not clear that the preamble may be resorted to explain it.

In case of inconsistency between the preamble and the provisions of the Act, the provisions will prevail. This means that if any provision of the Act is in conflict with the objectives or purposes stated in the preamble, the provision will take precedence. However, if the provisions of the Act are doubtful of meaning, the preamble may be referred to in order to ascertain the object of the statute.

In the case of Commissioner for Special Purposes, Income Tax v. Pemsel, the House of Lords held that the preamble can be used to interpret the provisions of the Act, but only to the extent that it sheds light on the object and scope of the statute. The court observed that the preamble can provide useful guidance in determining the meaning and intention of the legislature, but it cannot be used to extend or restrict the provisions of the Act beyond their plain meaning.

To summarize, the preamble of a statute is an important component of the Act that outlines its objectives and purposes. However, it cannot override the express provisions of the Act and is only relevant in cases where the provisions are doubtful of meaning. The cardinal principle of construction is that the provisions of the Act will prevail over the preamble in case of inconsistency.

In the context of using referential legislation as a tool of interpretation, one essential principle that the court must bear in mind is that such interpretation should not undermine the object and essence of the principal legislation. Any interpretation that interferes with the scheme of the principal Act would weigh against accepting it.

This principle was reiterated in the case of Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The court must ensure that any interpretation based on referential legislation should not defeat the very purpose of the principal Act. The court must, therefore, approach the interpretation with caution to avoid any potential conflict or destruction of the object and scheme of the principal legislation. The court must remain mindful that the principal Act is the foundation, and the legislation by reference must be read in harmony with it.

This case concerns the interpretation of the provisions of a Town Planning Scheme. The court held that the public interest and valid provisions of the scheme must not be defeated by any lapses committed by the parties involved. Therefore, it is necessary to allow the competent planning authority to act in furtherance of the scheme according to the law. The court emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity of the scheme and ensuring that it serves its intended purpose of promoting planned development in the region.

The court recognized that while the parties involved may have made mistakes or committed lapses, such errors should not be allowed to undermine the scheme’s goals. Ultimately, the court’s interpretation of the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme was guided by the principle of upholding the public interest and ensuring that the scheme is given effect in accordance with its valid provisions.

The principle of statutory interpretation requires that a statute should be construed in a manner that prevents the mischief and advances the remedy according to the true intention of the makers of the statute. This principle was established in the case of Sevanti lal Maneklal Sheth v. C.I.T. The Supreme Court has also held that the most rational method to interpret the intention of the lawmaker is by exploring their intention at the time the law was made, through signs that are the most natural and probable.

However, if the words of a statute are precise and unambiguous, they must be accepted as declaring the express intention of the Legislature, as held in CIT v. Ajay Products Ltd. The Supreme Court has also laid down in The Collector v. Parle Products (P.) Ltd. that the intention of the lawmaker should be interpreted in the fairest and most rational manner possible.

Therefore, the Court should consider all relevant factors, such as the language used in the statute, the context in which it was enacted, and the purpose and consequences of the statute, to determine the intention of the lawmaker. If the language is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its plain and natural meaning. However, if the language is ambiguous or capable of more than one interpretation, the Court may resort to other methods of interpretation, such as the purposive approach, to ascertain the true intention of the legislature.

The fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is that the intention of the legislature should be discerned from the language used in the statute itself. If the language is clear and unambiguous, then no interpretation is required. However, if there is any ambiguity in the language, then the courts must interpret the statute in order to ascertain the intention of the legislature. The courts must give effect to the intention of the legislature, as expressed in the language of the statute.

If the language is capable of two interpretations, the court must choose the interpretation that is most in keeping with the legislative intent. The purpose of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intention of the legislature, and not to substitute the court’s own judgment for that of the legislature. Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, (1982) 2 SCC 61: AIR 1982 SC 1230 (2): 1982 All. L.J. 376 (1982) Rent L. R. 355: 1982 (2) SCC 618: (1982) 2 Rent C. R. 383.

The court should avoid interpreting a statute, rule, or bye-law in a way that would make the system unworkable. This principle was established in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543: (1984 ) 86 Bom. L.R. 428case, where the court emphasized the importance of ensuring practicality in the interpretation of legal provisions.

When interpreting a statute, courts can consider external or historical facts to understand its subject matter and the circumstances surrounding its passage. The state of things existing at the time the statute was passed, as well as the problems it aimed to address, can also be taken into account. The statute must be read as a whole, and each chapter, section, and word must be considered. No part of the statute should be rendered redundant unless absolutely necessary. Beneficial legislation should be interpreted to achieve its statutory purpose rather than frustrate it.

The fundamental principle of the construction of a statute is to read it as a whole, followed by chapter by chapter, section by section, and word by word. Interpretation of a statute is only necessary when there is ambiguity, obscurity, or inconsistency in it. It is important to make an effort to give effect to all parts of the statute, and no part thereof shall be rendered surplusage or redundant unless absolutely necessary. The meaning of a provision of law should be determined based on its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law.

The scope of legislation cannot be enlarged beyond the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. Furthermore, a beneficent provision of legislation must be liberally construed so as to fulfill the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it. It is well-established that a statute should not be interpreted in a way that renders it ineffective or defeats its purpose. The courts can consider external or historical facts when interpreting a statute, but such facts must be necessary to understand the subject matter of the statute or to have regard to the surrounding circumstances that existed at the time of the statute’s passing.

In conclusion, the interpretation of a statute should be based on its clear language, the scheme of law, and the intention of the legislature. The courts should avoid adding, altering, or modifying any words unless absolutely necessary to avoid an absurd or unworkable result. The courts should also ensure that beneficent provisions of legislation are interpreted liberally to fulfill the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it. Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited, 2003 AIR(SC) 511: 2003 (2) SCC 111 is a case that reaffirms these principles.

Also Read: https://legalreferencer.in/labour-laws-in-india-pdf-34-acts/

SCHEME OF THE ACT

The Act has three fundamental principles, which are participation of the people in the planning process, publicizing measures taken or contemplated under the Act, and adherence to the time-bound stages of planning and revision. These principles are embodied in sections 21 to 31, which deal with the preparation and finalization of the development plan, and section 38, which deals with revisions. Section 21 requires the notice of preparation of the first draft development plan to be published in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed.

The planning authority must also make and publish a declaration of intent to prepare a development plan, which should be published in the Official Gazette and one or more local newspapers to invite objections and suggestions from the public within 60 days of publication. Although in the initial stage, as only the area’s boundary is to be depicted, a copy of the same must be kept open for public inspection at the Planning Authority’s office.

Section 26 outlines the preparation of the Draft Development Plan (DDP) and its publication in the Gazette and other manners as determined by the authority. Copies of the DDP are made available for inspection and for sale at reasonable prices to invite objections and suggestions from the public. Section 28 requires the Planning Authority to consider the objections and suggestions received and modify or change the DDP if necessary. The objections and considerations are submitted to the Planning Committee (PC), which is required to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the persons who have lodged objections and suggestions.

Section 31(1) of the Act requires the Government to accord sanction to the DDP within one year of receiving it from the DPA, after consulting with the Director of Town Planning. The sanction can be for the whole area or any part of it, with or without modifications. If necessary, the Government may return the DDP to the PA with a direction to modify it as indicated or prepare a fresh Plan. Any action taken under these provisions must be notified in the Official Gazette.

If an extension of the one-year period for according or refusing sanction is required, it must be notified in the Official Gazette, as provided in the first proviso. Under the second proviso, where the proposed modifications of the State Government are of a substantial nature, objections and suggestions to the same are invited by notice in the Gazette and local newspaper. The proposed modifications remain in force until 60 days from the publication of the notice have expired. Subsection (2) provides for the appointment of an officer to hear objections and suggestions and submit a report.

The Government must consider the objections and suggestions together with the report. The Notification bringing the final Plan into operation must fix a date that is at least one month after the date of publication. The DDP, to the extent that it designates any land for the purposes mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of section 22, is acceptable only if the PA can acquire it by private agreement or compulsory acquisition within 10 years. The Plan that comes into operation is binding on the PA and is known as the Final Development Plan (FDP)..

SELF-CONTAINED CODE

The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act is a self-contained code that governs the preparation, submission, and sanction of plans for planned development. It provides for an adjudicatory mechanism for objections by land-holders, and an appeal process is available under the Act.

The MRTP Act is a complete code that provides for the various steps related to the execution of its object, the constitution of various authorities to implement the underlying scheme of planned development, and machinery for interested persons to raise their claims for adjudication under the provisions of this Act or to an authority referred to in the Act. Therefore, the MRTP Act is a comprehensive legislation that is self-sufficient and self-contained.

The primary objective of the MRTP Act is planned development, and other matters are incidental to achieving that objective. All provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied to the MRTP Act. The provisions of the MRTP Act must be implemented within their own field. While it may be necessary to acquire land primarily for planned development as contemplated under the MRTP Act, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot hamper or obstruct the principal object of the State Act, which is the execution of planned development.

Some provisions of the State Act refer to certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, but only for the limited purpose of acquiring land. The purpose of such reference is to take aid of the provisions of the Central Act only for the purpose of acquiring land in accordance with the law stated therein.

Therefore, the MRTP Act is a self-contained code that does not lose its colour or content of being a self-contained code merely because it refers to some provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land for the MRTP Act and determining compensation in that regard. The referred provisions of the Land Acquisition Act may only be applied within the limited framework and for the purpose of the MRTP Act.

In conclusion, the MRTP Act is a comprehensive and self-sufficient code that is designed to achieve planned development. While some provisions of the Land Acquisition Act may be applicable to the MRTP Act, they are only to be used to acquire land for planned development and determine compensation, and not to hamper or obstruct the principal objective of the MRTP Act.

The 2009 amendment to the MRTP Act deleted the phrase “if proceedings for acquisition of such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act.” This suggests that the Legislature deliberately removed the general reference to the Land Acquisition Act and replaced it with a specific reference to Section 126(2) or 126(4) of the MRTP Act, with the time period for taking action being increased from six months to 12 months. The legislative intent was to make the MRTP Act a self-contained code that does not generally rely on the Land Acquisition Act for executing planned development.

Therefore, the default clause in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not needed because the MRTP Act provides for defaults, consequences, and remedies under Section 126. The case of Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in 2011 supports this interpretation. Overall, it can be concluded that the MRTP Act is a self-contained code that specifically provides for planned development and its implementation. The Act’s provisions should be applied within their own field, and any references to the Land Acquisition Act are intended only for the purpose of acquiring land in accordance with the law.

AIM AND OBJECT OF THE ACT

The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act is aimed at facilitating planned development and use of land in designated regions, through the establishment of Regional Planning Boards. The Act also seeks to improve the preparation of Development plans to ensure the proper and effective execution of town planning schemes, as well as the creation of new towns through Development Authorities. Additionally, it provides for compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes in accordance with the plans.

The fundamental purpose of the MRTP Act is to ensure the proper and planned development of the areas it covers. Consequently, planning authorities have a legal obligation to ensure that development is carried out in accordance with the development plan. The Act seeks to ensure that the acquisition of land is carried out in a planned and regulated manner to avoid any disruption to the execution of development plans.

The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973 are three important pieces of legislation enacted by the State of Maharashtra. While each of these Acts has its own distinct objective, they are not inconsistent with each other. In fact, the objects of the 1971 and the 1973 Acts are in line with the objectives of the Town Planning Act of 1966 and are aimed at fulfilling the goals of planned development in Maharashtra.

The Town Planning Act, 1966, aims to provide for planning the development and use of land, to make better provisions for the preparation of development plans, and to create new towns. On the other hand, the 1971 and the 1973 Acts aim to improve, clear, and redevelop slum areas and provide for the constitution of slum improvement boards.

It is important to note that the objectives of the Town Planning Act cannot be fulfilled without the enactment and implementation of laws such as the 1971 and the 1973 Acts. The absence of such laws can lead to frustration or defeat of some of the objectives of the Town Planning Act. Therefore, these three enactments have to be read harmoniously and construed accordingly.

The three Acts are modern solutions and remedies to the ever-emerging new problems of modern times. While it is desirable to hope for a time when laws such as the Slum Areas Act and the Slum Improvement Board Act are no longer necessary, the fact remains that they are currently essential for the fulfilment of modern welfare activities of the State. Until the times arrive when slum areas are a thing of the past, the community at large and citizens must accept and abide by the provisions of these laws.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Pandharinath Dhole & Others, the Court observed that the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973, were enacted to provide better living conditions for people living in slum areas. These laws were a result of the realization that slum areas were a major problem faced by the State and required urgent attention.

The Court noted that slum areas were characterized by overcrowding, lack of basic amenities such as water and sanitation, and poor living conditions. The slum areas were also a breeding ground for diseases and posed a threat to the health of the people living there. The Court further observed that the 1971 and the 1973 Acts were aimed at improving the living conditions of the people living in slum areas by providing for their redevelopment and providing them with basic amenities.

The Court also noted that the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, was enacted with the objective of planning the development and use of land in the Regions established for that purpose. In conclusion, the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973, are three important pieces of legislation enacted by the State of Maharashtra. While they have different objectives, they are not inconsistent with each other. These laws are aimed at fulfilling the objectives of planned development in Maharashtra and are essential for the betterment of the lives of people living in slum areas.

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE TOWN PLANNING ACT

Under Entry No. 20 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature has the power to pass a Town Planning Act. However, the Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992, also known as the Seventy Fourth Amendment, aimed to provide a constitutional status to municipal governments in India.

The Amendment Act brought about uniformity in the governance of municipal bodies throughout the country by organizing municipalities into three levels: municipal corporations for larger urban areas, municipal councils for smaller urban areas, and nagar panchayats for areas transitioning from rural to urban. The Act also ensured that people’s representation would be at the forefront of civic affairs at all times through the process of decentralization of political decisions and planning decisions. The State Election Commission would be established in each state to supervise regular elections.

The Amendment Act also provided for adequate representation of weaker sections of society, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women, to maintain proper fiscal relationships with municipalities. Additionally, the Act established State Finance Commissions to ensure the fair distribution of funds to municipalities. The Act also established District Planning Committees to prepare integrated development plans for municipalities and panchayats in any metropolitan area or district. People’s representatives would have a say in all aspects of planning.

The Constitution was amended to include a new Part IXA in 1992, which defined the terms “Metropolitan Area,” “Municipal Area,” “Municipality,” and “Panchayat.” Art. 243P (c) provides definitions for these terms. Art. 243Y provides for the constitution of Finance Commissions, Art. 243ZD provides for district planning, and Art. 243ZE provides for a committee for Metropolitan Planning. Art. 243W describes the parameters of powers, authority, and responsibilities of Municipalities.

It is noteworthy that under the Constitution, the provisions of Art. 243W are not mandatory. While the Constitution provides for the establishment of District Planning Committees and Finance Commissions, it is not mandatory for the state governments to establish them. The power to establish these committees and commissions lies with the state governments, and it is up to their discretion to do so.

In summary, the Seventy Fourth Constitutional Amendment Act aimed to provide a constitutional status to municipal governments in India. It established uniformity in the governance of municipal bodies throughout the country, ensured people’s representation at the helm of civic affairs, and provided for the establishment of State Finance Commissions, District Planning Committees, and committees for Metropolitan Planning. While the Constitution provides for the establishment of these bodies, their formation is not mandatory.

REGIONAL PLANNING IN MAHARASHTRA

The Committee was chaired by Dr. D. R. Gadgil, who was then the Director of Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics in Pune. The primary objective of the Gadgil Committee was to make recommendations for the establishment of Metropolitan Authorities to prepare and execute plans for these regions.

The Gadgil Committee proposed that a Metropolitan Regional Plan should primarily indicate the most desirable manner in which the distribution of population of the region, present and future, should be brought about in its various aspects of living and working. The plan would have to concern itself with patterns of land use, systems of communication, localities of centers of activity provision of amenities and public utilities, and socio-economic overheads and services.

The broad socio-economic objectives may be derived from the emphasis on the provisions of minimum standards of living including housing, health, and education for all, and the insistence on wide dispersal of economic activity and the prevention of its concentration, which are the directive policies incorporated in the constitutional statements made in the National Plan.

The Gadgil Committee suggested that for a region like Bombay, two objectives should be met: proper development of the undeveloped area and the renewal and redevelopment of the over-developed or badly developed area. The Committee recommended an integrated plan that would achieve both these aims.

The Committee observed that the Regional Planning and Development Corporation could not and was not intended to take over the development activity of the local authorities in the region. The principal function of the corporation would be to work out a frame of general policy related to the needs of the region as a whole, in which development plans of the local authorities are fitted in a coordinated manner.

To give substance to its policy, the Regional Corporation would need to undertake a series of planned major works. In particular, it would have the power to purchase lands and develop them in accordance with the regional plan, and it would have a special responsibility in the setting up of new townships. The purpose of the Regional Corporation was to support, not to supersede existing authorities, and it would be mainly active in relation to major questions of land use and development and redevelopment.

In conclusion, the Gadgil Committee proposed broad principles of regional planning for the Metropolitan Regions of Bombay-Panvel and Poona, and recommended the establishment of Metropolitan Authorities to prepare and execute plans for these regions. The Committee suggested that a Metropolitan Regional Plan should primarily indicate the most desirable manner in which the distribution of population of the region, present and future, should be brought about in its various aspects of living and working.

The Committee also proposed an integrated plan that would achieve the proper development of the undeveloped area and the renewal and redevelopment of the over-developed or badly developed area. Finally, the Committee recommended that the Regional Corporation should support, not supersede, existing authorities and be mainly active in relation to major questions of land use and development and redevelopment.

In recent times, the awareness and concern over the deteriorating state of the environment has increased significantly. The evidence of the declining environmental quality is seen in the increasing pollution, loss of vegetal cover and biological diversity, excessive concentrations of harmful chemicals in the ambient atmosphere and in food grains, ever-growing risks of environmental accidents and threats to life support systems. To protect the environment, the Indian government adopted various measures after the Stockholm conference in June 1972.

In the case of Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577, the court held that it is the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the environment and that every individual has a fundamental right to a healthy environment.

Environmental protection and regional planning go hand in hand. Regional planning is the process of formulating policies and strategies for the orderly and sustainable development of land and other resources in a region. It involves the integration of economic, social, and environmental factors to create a balanced and sustainable development pattern. Regional planning aims to ensure that development is carried out in a manner that is sustainable and does not harm the environment.

To achieve sustainable development, it is essential to ensure that the environmental impact of development is minimal. Environmental considerations must be taken into account while preparing regional plans. The planning process must involve an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of development activities, including the impact on air and water quality, biodiversity, and natural resources. The planning process must also consider the potential social and economic impacts of development activities.

Regional planning must be based on the principles of sustainable development. It should aim to create a development pattern that is environmentally sustainable, economically viable, and socially acceptable. This requires a careful balance between economic development and environmental protection. Regional planning must also involve the participation of local communities to ensure that the planning process is democratic and transparent.

In conclusion, environmental protection and regional planning are two sides of the same coin. It is crucial to ensure that regional planning is carried out in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. This will help to ensure that development is carried out in a manner that is sustainable and does not harm the environment. Environmental protection and regional planning must be seen as complementary processes that are essential for the sustainable development of a region.

APPLICABILITY OF URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 ON RESERVED LANDS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSES–

Section 42 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (M.R.T.P.) Act, 1966, contains an overriding provision that stipulates that the provisions of the Act shall have effect despite any inconsistency with any other law, custom, usage, agreement, or court order. This provision ensures that the M.R.T.P. Act takes precedence over any other law or legal instrument that conflicts with it.

The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966, do not have any specific provisions that exclude the operation of the Urban Land Act concerning lands that have been reserved for public purposes under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. Therefore, the reservation of such lands for public purposes under the M.R.T.P. Act is applicable.

In the case of Dattatraya Shankarbhat Ambalgi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court upheld this principle. The court held that the reservation of land for public purposes under the M.R.T.P. Act supersedes any conflicting provision in the Urban Land Act. The court also emphasized the importance of the reservation of land for public purposes under the M.R.T.P. Act in promoting the welfare of the community and in ensuring proper urban and regional planning.

Overall, this case highlights the importance of the M.R.T.P. Act in regulating land use and promoting sustainable development in Maharashtra. The Act’s overriding provision in section 42 ensures that its provisions take precedence over any conflicting legal instrument, including the Urban Land Act. The reservation of land for public purposes under the M.R.T.P. Act is a crucial component of its regulatory framework, and it helps to ensure the proper planning and development of urban and regional areas.

TOWN PLANNING AND SLUM IMPROVEMENT

The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 and the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Boards Act, 1973 are not in conflict with the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. In fact, the purpose of the 1971 and 1973 Acts is to support the objectives of the Town Planning Act, 1966. This was confirmed in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Shri Mahadeo Pandharinath Dhole and Ors., where it was established that the 1971 and 1973 Acts are steps towards achieving the goals of the Town Planning Act, 1966.

The Bombay Town Planning Act provides principles for determining compensation that must be adjusted when determining the amount of contribution. These principles are related to compensation and cannot be challenged on the ground that they do not provide a just equivalent for what the owner has been deprived of. Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India excludes challenges to principles of compensation.

The validity of the Act regarding acquisition and requisition cannot be questioned on the grounds that it violates Article 19(1)(f) and cannot be decided based on the criterion under Article 19(5). The validity of the statute cannot depend on whether it operates harshly in a given case.

The passage of a considerable amount of time since the declaration of intention to make a scheme cannot be used as a reason to declare section ultra vires. If section 71, read with section 67, sets out a principle of valuation, it cannot be struck down because it is not possible to allot a reconstituted plot to the owner of land covered by the scheme due to exigencies of the scheme.

The principles specified for compensation in the Bombay Town Planning Act cannot be challenged under Article 31(2), and the validity of the Act regarding acquisition and requisition cannot be questioned on the grounds that it violates Article 19(1)(f). The statute’s validity cannot depend on whether it operates harshly in a given case, nor can the passage of a considerable amount of time since the declaration of intention to make a scheme be used as a reason to declare section ultra vires.

The decision in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal explains that if section 71, along with section 67, establishes a principle of valuation, it cannot be invalidated simply because the scheme’s exigencies make it impossible to allot a reconstituted plot to the owner of land covered by the scheme. To put it another way, the validity of the statute cannot depend on whether it operates harshly in a particular case.

ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION

The issue of illegal and unauthorized construction by developers/builders is a contentious one, particularly in the context of town planning. In the case of Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Others, it was held that flat buyers who have purchased units in buildings that have been illegally and/or unauthorizedly constructed by developers/builders cannot seek a direction for the regularization of such construction.

Instead, the only remedy available to such flat buyers is to sue the lessee and the developer/builder for the return of the money paid and/or for damages incurred. This means that the flat buyers are entitled to seek compensation from the developer/builder for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the illegal or unauthorized construction.

The Court clarified that regularizing such construction would be against the principles of town planning and would set a bad precedent. It would not only encourage builders/developers to flout the law but also undermine the role of the local authority in enforcing the town planning regulations.

In the absence of any provision under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, or any other relevant law, the Court held that the local authority could not be directed to regularize unauthorized or illegal construction. It was the responsibility of the developer/builder to ensure that any construction carried out was in accordance with the applicable town planning regulations.

The Court observed that the local authority had a duty to ensure that the town planning regulations were complied with, and any deviation from such regulations would be viewed seriously. Therefore, the Court refused to grant any relief to the flat buyers seeking regularization of the illegal and unauthorized construction.

In conclusion, the decision in the Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. case highlights the importance of compliance with town planning regulations. It also emphasizes the need for developers/builders to ensure that any construction carried out is in accordance with such regulations. Flat buyers who have been affected by illegal or unauthorized construction can seek compensation from the developer/builder, but they cannot seek a direction for regularization of such construction.

Also Read : Chapters of MRTP, Act 1966

• MRTP ACT 1966-THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING ACT 1966: CONTROLLING URBAN SPRAWL- PART 1
• MRTP ACT 1966-THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING ACT 1966: CHAPTER I- PART 2
• MRTP ACT 1966-THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING ACT 1966: CHAPTER II- PART 3
• MRTP ACT 1966-THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING ACT 1966: CHAPTER III(DEVELOPMENT PLAN)- PART 4
• MRTP ACT 1966-THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING ACT 1966: CHAPTER III A (AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY)-PART 5
• MRTP ACT 1966-THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT 1966: CHAPTER IV (CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF LAND INCLUDED IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS)-PART 6
• MRTP ACT 1966-THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT 1966: CHAPTER V-TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES-PART 7

FAQ’s