# MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. KISHAN DAS & ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1969] 2 S.C.R. 166
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-09-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1049 of 1968
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-v-kishan-das-another-4481
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

166
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
v.
KISHAN DAS & ANOTHER
September 19, 1968.
[J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JI.)
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (66 of 1957), ss. 336 and 380Sanction of building plans-Powers of refusal-De/hi Development Act
(61
of 1951), s.
14-Master Plan prepared but no Zonal Plan prepared-Violation of Master Plan-Whether use of land prohibited.
The Commissioner of the appellant (Municipal Corporation of Deihl)
issued notice to the respondents stating that the building owned by them
posed a danger to the residents of the area and that necessary repairs may
be carried out immediately after obtaining sanction. The respondents
thereupon submitted plans to the Corporation but the Commissioner of the
Corporation refused the sanction on the ground that the land belonging
to the respondents would be covered by a road proposed in the Master
Plan prepared by the Delhi Development Authority. The respondents
filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for a direction to the
Corporation to accord the sanction.
The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the Commissioner could decline the sanction only if
there was a contravention of s. 336(2) or s. 340 of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 and that in this case there was no such contravention. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the Commissioner was, under s. 336(2) (a), entitled to refuse sanction of a
building or work if the building or work or use of the site for building
· or work contravened 'any other law', that the Master Plan prepared had
come into effect under the Development Act and that as the proposed
construction would not be in conformity with the Master Plan it would
contravene s. 14 of the Development Act.
HELD : The appeal must fail.
The provisions of s. 7 of the Development Act indicate that the
Master Plan will only give a very broad outline of the Development
A
B
c
D
E
Act that the moment a Master Plan has come into operation and if it
F
contains a proposal regarding the width that a road should have, all use
of land adjoining that road is prohibited for an indefinite period. Under
s. 14, if any particular and definite use of land is indicated in a Master
Plan, different use of that land cannot be permitted. Similarly, if a
Zonal Development Plan, the preparation of which is mandatory under
s. 8, provides for a particular use of any land or any building in !bat
Zone, it cannot be put to a different use; if neither of the plans provide
for the particular use of any land or building in the area or
Zone,
G
s. 14 will have no apl'lication whatsoever.
The respondents' lands were not in any manner indicated as being
taken up by any part of the proposed road mentioned in the Master
Plan, nor was a Zonal Development Plan prepared, in the present case.
Therefore, there was no violation of s. 14 of the Development Act and
hence there was no violation of 'any other law' under s. 336(2) (a) of
the Corporation Act. [175 F-176 G)
H

## Text

166
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
v.
KISHAN DAS & ANOTHER
September 19, 1968.
[J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JI.)
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (66 of 1957), ss. 336 and 380Sanction of building plans-Powers of refusal-De/hi Development Act
(61
of 1951), s.
14-Master Plan prepared but no Zonal Plan prepared-Violation of Master Plan-Whether use of land prohibited.
The Commissioner of the appellant (Municipal Corporation of Deihl)
issued notice to the respondents stating that the building owned by them
posed a danger to the residents of the area and that necessary repairs may
be carried out immediately after obtaining sanction. The respondents
thereupon submitted plans to the Corporation but the Commissioner of the
Corporation refused the sanction on the ground that the land belonging
to the respondents would be covered by a road proposed in the Master
Plan prepared by the Delhi Development Authority. The respondents
filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for a direction to the
Corporation to accord the sanction.
The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the Commissioner could decline the sanction only if
there was a contravention of s. 336(2) or s. 340 of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 and that in this case there was no such contravention. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the Commissioner was, under s. 336(2) (a), entitled to refuse sanction of a
building or work if the building or work or use of the site for building
· or work contravened 'any other law', that the Master Plan prepared had
come into effect under the Development Act and that as the proposed
construction would not be in conformity with the Master Plan it would
contravene s. 14 of the Development Act.
HELD : The appeal must fail.
The provisions of s. 7 of the Development Act indicate that the
Master Plan will only give a very broad outline of the Development
A
B
c
D
E
Act that the moment a Master Plan has come into operation and if it
F
contains a proposal regarding the width that a road should have, all use
of land adjoining that road is prohibited for an indefinite period. Under
s. 14, if any particular and definite use of land is indicated in a Master
Plan, different use of that land cannot be permitted. Similarly, if a
Zonal Development Plan, the preparation of which is mandatory under
s. 8, provides for a particular use of any land or any building in !bat
Zone, it cannot be put to a different use; if neither of the plans provide
for the particular use of any land or building in the area or
Zone,
G
s. 14 will have no apl'lication whatsoever.
The respondents' lands were not in any manner indicated as being
taken up by any part of the proposed road mentioned in the Master
Plan, nor was a Zonal Development Plan prepared, in the present case.
Therefore, there was no violation of s. 14 of the Development Act and
hence there was no violation of 'any other law' under s. 336(2) (a) of
the Corporation Act. [175 F-176 G)
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1049 of
1968.
-.
'
'
MUNIC. CORP. v. KISHAN (Vaidialingam, J.)
167
A
Appeal by special leave from the order, dated August 11, 1967
of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 85 of 1967.
Niren De, Solicitor-General, B. P. Maheshwari
and R. K.
Maheshwari, for the appellant.
M. C. Chagla and Urmila Kapoor, for the respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J.
This appeal, by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, by special leave, is directed against the judgment
and order, dated August 11, 1967 passed by the High Court of
Delhi High Court, dated May 10, 1967 whereby a writ of mandaPatent Bench had confirmed an order of the learned Chief Justice,
C
Delhi High Court, dated May 10, 1967 whereby a writ of Mandamus had been issued to the appellant to approve the plans submitted by the respondents and grant the sanction asked for.
D
E
The circumstances leading up to the issue of the writ of
mandamus against the appellant may be briefly adverted to. The
respondents are the owners and are in possession of the building
bearing municipal door Nos. 3766 to 3776, situated in the main
Chawri Bazar, Delhi. As the building was an old construction and
required urgent and extensive repairs, on October 16, 1965 the
respondents submitted to the appellant plans for its sanction for
execution of work consisting of rejlairs, additions as well as alterations to the said building.
The Commissioner of the appellant
Corporation, by Jetter, dated February 4,
1966 informed the
respondents that their application for execution of construction
work in respect of house Nos. 3766 to 3776 had been refused on
the grounds "that the proposal was under acquisition and also
effected in the ROW and thei land was residential against proposal
of commercial".
F
A controversy appears to have been raised by the appellant
before the High Court that the application, by the respondents,
related also to certain other municipal door numbers, but as that
is not material for the present purpose, we do not refer to the same.
Attempts made by the respondents to satisfy the Commissioner that
their application was quite legal and that there was no violation
G
of any law or rules having failed, they filed Civil Writ Petition
No. 410-D of 1966 in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court
at Delhi, under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue
of an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
appellant to accord sanction to the plan for execution of work in
respect of the building as per their application of October 16, 1965.
According to the respondents it was incumbent on the CommisH
sioner of the appellant, under s. 336 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 (Act LXVI of 1957) (hereinafter referred
to as the Corporation Act), to sanction the plans of a building or
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 2 S.C.R.
execution of a work unless such a building or work contravened
any of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 336 ors. 340 of the Corporation Act. It was further stated that the plan submitted by
them did not contravene any of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of
s. 336 or s. 340 of the Corporation Act. The reasons given for
rejection, by the Commissioner, were also challenged as being
vague and unintelligible apaft from being extraneous to the provisions of the Act. The respondents further averred that the buildings required extensive repairs as was clear from the notice, dated
March 3, 1966, issued by the Commissioner of . the appellant
stating that the building posed a danger to the residents of the area
and that the necessary repairs had to be carried out innnediately,
after obtaining sanction from the building department, and threatening penal consequences if the respondents did not comply with
the notice.
On these grounds they urged that the order, dated
February 4, 1966 passed by the Commissioner refusing to accord
sanction was illegal and ultra vires and in consequence they prayed
for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to
accord sanction, as asked for by them.
On behalf of the appellant, the Assistant Engineer had filed a
counter affidavit.
The material averments, relevant for the present purpose, are that the respondents are the owners of the premises and that the construction was old and required repairs; but
the plans submitted by the respondents did not conform to bye-laws
and contravened s. 336(2) (a) in respect of land use ands. 340(2)
with respect to requisitioning of land by the Dellti Development
Authority for their Scheme and that the plans were also affected
by road widening.
In their reply affidavit the respondents controverted the averments of the Assistant Engineer that the plans did not conform to
bye-laws or the provisions of s. 336(2) or any other law in respect
of land use. . They stated that according to the Master Plan
prepared under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 certain areas,
including Chawri Bazar, would be the Central Business District
of Delhi and that the proposed user, mentioned by. them in the
plan sent for sanction was not in contravention of the Master Plan.
They also denied that the Delhi Development Authority had any
scheme for road widening. They further referred to a letter, dated
April 30, 1966 of the Delhi Development Authority stating that
the Zonal Development Plan has not been prepared for the area
in question. They finally reiterated the plea that the order ref11sing
sanction was not based on any of the grounds . envisaged by
s. 336(2) or s. 340 or any other provision of the Corporation Act
or of any other Act.
The learned Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, who. heard
the writ petition in the first instance, by his judgment and order
A
.
'
,.
... -,
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
H
•
A
c
0
F
H
MUNIC. CORP. v. KISHAN (Vaidialingam, J.)
169
dated May 10, 1967 accepted the writ petition filed by the respondents and issued a mandamus to the appe!lant to approve the plans
and grant the sanction asked for. The learned Chief Justice has
expressed the view that the Commissioner could dt:cline the sanction only if there was a contravention of sub-s. (2) of s. 336 or
s. 340 of the Corporation Act. In this case, according to the
learned Chief Justice, there was no such contravention established
by the appe!lant and if that were so the Commissioner had no
power to refuse to accord the sanction asked for by the respondents. He was of the further view that the grounds on which the
Commissioner refused sanction were wholly irrelevant and not
germane to the sanction asked for. Taking the further view that
the Commissioner had a statutory duty to grant the sanction asked
for, the learned Chief Justice directed the issue of a writ of
mandamus. This judgment of the learned Chief Justice as mentioned earlier, was affirmed by the judgment of the Letters Patent
Bench of the Delhi High Court, dated August 11, 1967.
The learned Solicitor General, on behalf of the Corporation,
bas urged that the order of the Commissioner refusing sanction is
legal and is justified by the provisions of cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of
s. 336 of the Corporation Act. Even at the outset he has made
it clear that he is relying upon only one of the grounds given in the
order, dated February 4, 1966 of the Commissioner, viz., that the
plan submitted was affected by the proposals contained in the
Master Plan in respect of widening of the read in the area in
question. The expression 'ROW' used in the order ref~rs to 'right
of way' which is with reference to the road proposed under the
Master Plan. The Master Plan has been prepared under s. 7 of
the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (Act LXI of 1957) (hereinafter
referred to as the Development Act) and it has come into operation, under s. 11, in the area concerned. The building operation
proposed by the respondents as per the plans submitted by them
will be contrary to the Master Plan and, as such, will be hit by
s. 14 of the Development Act. In short, the contention of the
learned Solicitor General is that the Master Plan prepared by the
Authority for Delhi, which has statutory force, has come into effect
under the Development Act. Under s. 336(2) (a) of the Corporation Act, the Commissioner is entitled to refuse sanction of a
building or work if the building or work or use of the site for
building or work would contravene 'any other law'. As the proposed construction would not be in conformity with the Master
Plan, s. 14 of the Development Act will be violated, in which case ·
there will be a contravention of 'any other law'. Hence the order
of rejection passed by the Commissioner is legal and valid.
In this connection the learned Solicitor General referred us to .
the Master Plan wherein it is stated that the proposed road. (in. ·
Chawri Bazar, which is the area with which we are concerned) ·
lSup. CI-69-12
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 2 S.C.R.
from Hauz Kazi to Jama Masjid is recommended to have a width
of 60 feet. The width of the existing road is only 48 feet. The
object of the Development Act is to freeze new building constructions which will be inconsistent with the Master Plan; and, if the
!Master Plan mentions the width of a proposed road and the -
width of an existing road is less, no new construction will be permissible on either side of the road till the excess area required for the
road is found. The Solicitor General has further urged that though
a Zonal Development Plan for each of the Zones in which Delhi
will have to be divided will have also to be prepared and has not
come into operation for the zone concerned, nevertheless, till such
a Zonal Development Plan comes into operation, the Master Plan
will hold the field. If a Zonal Development Plan comes into force
and has made any alteration, the Zonal Development Plan will then
have effect and the Master Plan will stand abridged or modified.
At present, it is the Master Plan that holds the field and, as
according to it an excess area of 12 feet for the proposed road will
have to be found, all building operations on either side of the proposed road will have to come to a standstill. That is, the learned
Solicitor General was prepared to take the stand that, so to say,
there is a freezing of all building operations, on either side of the
existing road which, according to him, is warranted by s. 14 of
the Development Act. In support of his contentions, the learned
Solicitor General drew our attention to certain provisions contained in the Corporation Act and the Development Act.
The stand taken by the learned Solicitor General has been very
strenuously controverted by Mr. M. C. Chagla, learned counsel
for the respondents. Mr. Chagla, apart from criticising the order,
dated August 11, 1967 as laconic and unintelligible and not containing any valid reasons has urged that the Master Plan, so
strongly relied on by the learned Solicitor General, does not, as
such, refer to the survey numbers in respect of which the respondents had asked for sanction. Before the High Court the appellant
has not relied upon the Master Plan nor.did it place any material
to show that any part of the proposed road shown in the Master ·
Plan will pass through any of the properties of the respondents.
The Master Plan prepared under the Development Act is nothing
but a broad outline of what Delhi would look like, in future. The
plan, which may probably give more accurately the lands in the
area which are reserved for roads, is the Zonal Development Plan,
the preparation of which is mandatory under s. 8 of the Development Act. Admittedly no such plan has been prepared, much less
has come into operation in the concerned zone.
So long as the
Master Plan does not state that any part of the property belonging
to the respondents will be covered by the proposed road, it cannot
be stated that when the respondents are attempting to renovate the
bQ.ilding they are using the land in the zone otherwise than in
conformity with the Master Plan. Mr. Chagla further points out
A
B
c
D
E
F'
G
ff
-~
' 'y
•
..
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
-....
H
MUNIC. CORP. v. KJSHAN ( Vaidialingam' I.)
1 7 1
that if the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant are
accepted, the entire building operations in Delhi will have to come
to a standstill for an indefinite number of years and, according to
him, that position is not envisaged either by the Master Plan or
the provisions of the Development Act.
He finally urged that
s. 14 of the Development Act has no application at all.
From the contentions of both the parties set out above, it will
be noticed that according to the appellant if building operations are
allowed to be carried on, there will be a violation of the Master
.Plan, and in consequence of the provisions of s. 14 of the Development Act; whereas, according to the respondent, there is no
violation of either the Master Plan or any provisions of the Development Act or of any other law.
A reference to the material provisions of the Corporation Act
and the Development Act, which will be made by us presently, will
clearly establish that the contentions of the learned Solicitor
General cannot be accepted.
We shall first take up the provisions of the Corporation Act.
Section 332 prohibits the erection or commencement of the erection of any building, or execution of any of the works specified
in s. 334, except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner.
Section 333 makes its mandatory on a person intending to erect a
building to apply to the Commissioner in that behalf. Section 334
makes it obligatory on a person, who intends to execute any of
the works mentioned therein, to apply for sanction to the Commissioner. Section 336 deals with sanction or refusal of building or
work. It is only necessary to refer to sub-s. (1) and cl. (a) of
sub-s. (2) of this section, because, as we have already stated, the
order of rejection by the Commissioner is sought to be justified
under this provision. These provisions are :
"336. ( 1) The Commisioner shall sanction the
erection of a building or the execution of a work unless
such. ~uilding or wo:k would co~trave~e any of the
provmons of sub-secuon (2) of this section or the provisions of section 340.
( 2) The grounds on which the sanction of a building or work may be refused shall be the following,.
namely:-
(a) that the building or work or the use of the site
fo; the. buildil!g or work or any of the particulars compns~d m .the site plan, ground plan, elevation, section or
specificat10n would contravene the provisions of any byeIaw made in this behalf or of anv other law or rule bye.-
law or order made under such other law·
•
•
"
•,
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 2 S.C.R.
Sub-s. (3) of s. 336 provides for the Co=issioner co=unicating
A
the sanction to the person who has given the notice; and in cases
where he refuses sanction on any of the grounds specified in subs. (2) of s. 336 or under s. 340, to record a brief statement of his
reasons for such refusal ·and co=unication of the refusal along
with the reasons to the party concerned.
It will be clear, from a perusal of s. 336, that the Commissioner has to give sanction for the erection of a building or the
execution of a work, unless such building or work would contravene any of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 336 or the provisions
of s. 340. Therefore, in order to sustain the validity of the order
of rejection passed by the Commissioner the appellant has to
establish, as it seeks to, that the proposed building or the use of
the site for the building, by the respondents, would contravene the
provisions of 'any other Jaw'. If the proposed building or use of
the site for the building would contravene the provisions of 'any
other law', the Commissioner has ample powers under cl. (a) of
s. 336 (2) to refuse sanction.
Section 340 gives power to the
Commissioner to refuse sanction for erection of any building on
either side of a new street, under the circumstances mentioned
therein.
B
c
D
We shall now refer to some of the provisions of the Development Act in order to appreciate the scheme of that statute. Tue
Development Act is an Act to provide for the development of
Delhi according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto. Section 2,
E
clauses (d) and (e), define the expressions 'development' and ,
'development area' respectively. Chapter II deals with the Delhi
Development Authority and its objects. Section 3, therein, provides for the Central Government constituting for the purposes of
the Act an authority to be called the Delhi Development Authority.
flt isthrefeArredh t~ in the ~ct. as the AAudt~ority.C Secuil· onf 5 phrovides · F.
or
e
ut onty constituung an · v1sory
ounc
or t e purpose of advising the Authority on the preparation of the Master
Plan aild the Zonal Development Plans and on such other matters
in connection with the administration of the Act Such Advisory
Council also has been duly constituted. Section 6 provides that
the object of the Authority shall be to promote and secure the
dt;velopment. of Delhi accordiD;g to plan and clothes the Authority
with the vanous powers mentmned therein.
Chapter III deals with Master Plan and Zonal Development
Plans. Section 7, therein, provides for the Authority carrying out
a civic survey of and preparing a Master Plan for Delhi. Under
sub-s. (2), the Master Plan shall-
' (a) define the various zones into which Delhi may
be divided for the purposes of development and indicate
the manner in which the land in e_ach zone}s proposed
G
H
•
'
•
•
...
A
MUNIC. CORP. v. KISHAN (Vaidia/ingam, J.)
173
to be used (whether by the carrying out thereon of
development or otherwise) and the stages by which any
such development shall be carried out; and
(b) serve as a basic pattern of frame-work within
which the zonal development plans of the various zones
B
may be prepared'.
c
D
Section 8 provides for the preparation, by the Authority of a zonal
development plan for each of the zones into which Th:lhi may
be divided and also refers to the various matters which are to be
indicated in the same.
The material provisions of s. 8 which,
according to us, will have a vital bearing in considering the soundness of the stand taken by the appellant are as follows :
"8. ( 1) Simultaneously with the preparation of the
master plan or as soon as may be thereafter, the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of a zonal
development plan for each of the zones into which Delhi
may be divided.
(2) A Zonal Development Plan may-
( a) contain a site-plan and use-plan for the development of the zone and show the approximate locations
and extents of land-uses proposed in the zone for such
things as public buildings and other public works and
E
utilities, roads, housing, recreation, industry, business,
markets, schools, hospitals and public and private open
spaces and other categories of public and private uses;
(d) in particular, contain provisions regarding all
F
or any of the following matters, namely :-
G
H
(ii) the allotment or reservation of land for roads,
open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets and other public purposes;
Section 9 ( 1) states that the expression 'plan' in that section and
in ss. 10, 11, 12 and 14 means the Master Plan as well as the
Zonal Development Plan for a zone. Sub-s. (2) provides for the
plan-which means the Master Plan as well as the Zonal Development Plan-being submitted after preparation by the Authority
to the Central Government for approval and it also gives power
to the Government to approve the plan, without modification or
with such .modi_ficat!ons as it may consider necessary, or reject
the plan w,th dHec!Jons to the Authority to prepare a fresh plan.
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 2 S.C.R.
Section 10 provides for the procedure to be followed ii;i the preA
paration and approval of plans. A perusal of that section shows
that ample opportunity has to be provided for persons and every
local authority to submit objections at the stage of tbe draft, and
it also requires the authority to consider any objections, suggestions and representations that may have been made, before the
final plan is prepared and submitted to the Central Government for
B
its approval. It also empowers the Central Government to call
for any information that it thinks necessary from the Authority
for the purpose of approving any plan submitted to it. Section 11
provides for the date of operation of the plan.
There is no controversy, in this case, that the Master Plan
has been prepared under s. 7 by the Authority on September 1,
1962 and it has also come into force, as contemplated by s. 11.
Though s. 8 contemplates the preparation of a Zonal Development
Plan simultaneously with the preparation of the Master Plan, or
as soon as may be thereafter, no Zonal Development Plan for the
zone concerned has been prepared up to now.
It may also be
pointed out that if and when such a Plan is prepared, containing
the various matters referred to in sub-s. (2) of s. 8, before it is
finalized and sent to the Central Government for approval, parties
and local authorities will have to be given an opportunity of sending their objections and suggestions and representations, which
have all to be duly and properly considered by the Authority
concerned.
Chapter III-A deals with modifications to the Master Plan
and the Zonal Development Plan.
Section 11-A, therein, pro-
·vides for the Authority and the Central Government making
modifications in the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan
under the circumstances and after following
the procedure,
mentioned therein.
Chapter IV deals with development of lands. Sub-s. ( 1) of
s. 12 gives power to the Central Government, by notification in
the Official Gazette, to declare any -area in Deihl to be a development area for the purposes of the Act. Sub-s. (2) prohibits the
Authority, except as otherwise provided for in the Act, to undertake or carry out any development of land in any area which is
not a development area. Sub-s. (3) provides that after the commencement of the Act no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out in any area by any person or body (including
a department of Government) except in the manner provided
therem.
Section 14, on which considerable reliance has been placed
on behalf of the appellant, is as follows :
'
"11. After the coming into operation of any of the
plans m a zone no person shal! use or permit to be
c
D
E
F
G
H
y
•
•
A
B
•
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
MUNIC. CORP. v. KISHAN (Vaidialingam, J.)
175
used any land or building in that zone otherwise than in
oonformity with such plan :
Provided that it shall be lawful to continue to use
upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by
regulations made in this behalf any land or building for
the purpose and to the extent for and to which it is being
used upon the date on which such plan comes into force."
A copy of the Master Plan for Delhi has been placed before
us by the learned Solicitor General.
Chapter I deals with the
Land Use Plan under various sub-heads. Chapter II deals with
Zoning and Sub-division Regulations.
There are certain maps
annexed to this Plan. Under the heading 'Proposed rights of way
in Old City', in paragraph 11 of Chapter I, item 7 refers to the
area concerned, viz., Chawri Bazar. Against that it is stated that
the road from Hauz Kazi to Jama Masjid, which is approximately
1,800 feet long is recommended to have a road width of 60 feet.
There is no controversy that the existing road is only 48 feet
wide.
Our attention has also been invited to two of the maps
annexed to this Master Plan, viz., the Zonal Map and the Proposed
Circulation Pattern of Walled City and it was stated that the area
marked 'A' in the Zonal Map refers to the Walled City which is
divided into 27 zones. The second map viz., the Proposed Circulation Pattern of Walled City, is an enlargement of the area 'A'
shown in the Zonal Map and the Chawri Bazar is shown there.
As stated earlier, considerable; reliance has been placed by
the fearned Solicitor General on the statement in the Master Plan
that the road in Chawri Bazar is to have a width of 60 feet and
on the two maps annexed to the Master Plan which, according to
him, will show the lay out of the proposed road.
The Master
Plan and the two maps relied on by the appellant do not give any
indication that any part of the land belonging to the respondents
will be covered by any portion of the proposed road. The provisions of s. 7 of the Development Act clearly indicate-and that is
borne out by the various matters mentioned in the Master Planthat the Master Plan will only give a very broad outline of Delhi as
it will look in future. Though there is an obligation on the Authority to prepare the Zonal Development Plan simultaneously with
the preparation of the Master Plan, or as soon as there may be
thereafter, no such Zonal Development Plan has been prepared.
That assumes considerable importance in this case because it is
the Zonal Development Plan, under s. 8(2)(a) which will show
the approximate locations and extents of land-uses proposed in a
zone for roads; further, under sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (d) of sub-s. (2)
of s. 8, the said Zonal Development Plan will also contain provision regarding the allotment or reservation of land for roads.
It is only when such allotment or reservation of land for roads is
made that it will be possible to know clearly as to which part of
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 2 s.c.R.
a person's land and what portion thereof is allotted or reserved for
a road. If such an indication is made available by the Zonal
Development Plan, then s. 14 will quite naturally stand attracted,
because any user of a land or building otherwise than in conformity
with the Zonal Development Plan will be hit by that section. In
the absence of any indication in the Master Plan, in this case, that
any part of the land of the respondents will be covered by a road,
or portion of a road it is not possible to accept the contention of
the learned Solicitor General that there will be any violation of
s. 14 of the Development Act if the respondents be permitted to
use the land, as asked for by them. To attract s. 14, the appellant
will have to establish that any ]and or part of a land or a building
in a Zone has been dealt with in a particular manner by the Master
Plan and that it is proposed to be used in a different manner: If
a Zonal Development Plan is prepared for the area, before it
comes into operation in the Zone, the procedure indicated in s. 10
will have to be followed and parties will have to be given an
opportunity of placing any objections or making any representations or offering· any suggestions.
So far as we can see, it is
certainly not the scheme of the Development Act that the moment
a Master Plan has come into operation and if it contains a proposal regarding the width that a road should have, all use of land
adjoining that road is prohibited for an indefinite period.
The
reasonable interpretation to be placed on s. 14 will be that if
any particular and definite use of land is indicated in a Master
Plan, a different use of that land cannot be permitted. Similarly,
if a Zonal Development Plan provides for a particular use of any
land or any building in that zone, it cannot be put to a different
use. If neither of the plans provide for the particular use of any
l~nd or building in the area or Zone, s. 14 will have no applica-
!Ion whatsoever.
.
A
B
c
D
E
We have already stated that the respondents' lands are not in
F
any manner indicated as being taken up by any part of the proposed road, mentioned in the Master Plan and, if that is so, there
is no violation of s. 14 of the Development Act. It ·also follows
that there is no violation of 'any law' under cl. (a) of sub-s. (2)
of s. 316 of the Corporation Act.
The High Court was perfectly justified, in the circumstances,
in issuing the writ of mandamus. The result is that the appeal
fails, and is dismissed.
The appeHant will pay the costs of the
respondents.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.
G
H
y
'
'
•
•