# RAJENDRA SHAN KAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OR$. ETC

- **Citation:** [2015] 11 S.C.R. 723
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 5769-5770 of 2015
- **Bench:** V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajendra-shan-kar-shukla-ors-etc-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-or-etc-30302
- **Pages:** 99

## Headnote

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh
Adhiniyam, 1973:
B
c
ss.14, 17, 38(1) - Town Planning Scheme - Kamal
Vihar Township Development Scheme (KVTDS) -
Formulation of scheme by the Director of respondent No. 2-.
RDA - Whether the KVTDS provide the authority to the 0
Director of respondent No.2-RDA, to formulate Town
Development Scheme and is it in contravention to the 73ro
and 741h Amendments to the Constitution - Held: Once the
Constitution provides for democratically elected bodies for
local self-government, a nominated body like Respondent E
No. 2-RDA cannot assume the role of an elected body and
consequently usurp the.power of the local authority in framing
development schemes and subsequently altering the size
and use of land in the KVTDS -
s. 17 mandates the
requirement of taking into consideration the Annual F
Development Plan of the District prepared under the
Adhiniyam of 1995 - However, in the case in hand, there is
no evidence to show that Respondent No. 2-RDA had taken
into consideration any repo1t'prepared under the Adhiniyam
of 1995- s.14 confers·the power upon the Director of Town G
and Country Planning appointed under the Act, to prepare
development plans - However, this power conferred upon
the Dir/3ctor has to be read along with s. 17 which mandates
the Director to take into consideration, any draft Five Year
Plan and Annual Development Plan of a district prepared H
723
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
under the Adhiniyam of 1995- There is no evidence to prove
that the Director had taken into account any report made
under the Adhiniyam of 1995 - On the other hand, the
evidence clearly shows that the Development Plan has been
altered to suit the requirement of KVTDS - This action by
B the Director is impermissible and unlawful -
Thi~refore,
KVTDS, having formulated solely by Respondent No. 2RDA without taking into consideration the reports of the local
authority, violates the Act of 1973 as well as 73rd and 74th
Amendments to the Constitution - Madhya Pradesh Zila
C
Yojana Samiti Adhiniyam 1995 - Constitution of India, 1950
- Part IX and IX-A; Schedule seventh; List II, Entry 5 -
Chhattisgarh Zilla Yojna Samiti Act, 1995- s. 3 - Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966- s. 65(1) Gujarat Town
0
Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976- s.45(1).
s. 50(1) - Preparation of Town Development Scheme -
Whether KVTDS is formulated as per the provision
mentioned in s.50(1) of the Act of 1973-Held: s.50(1) vests
the jurisdiction on the Authority to declare its intention for
E preparing the Town Development Scheme which in this case
is respondent no.2-RDA - s.49 provides that a Town
Development Scheme can be proposed for the purpose of
town expansion, for rebuilding and regenerating areas which
F have degenerated into slums, acquire and development land
for public, commercial and industrial purpose and also for
other work which would bring about environmental
improvement which shall also be taken up with the prior
approval of the State Government- Respondent No. 2-RDA
G has not put any document on record, either before the High
Court or this Court to show any assessment of "need" or
"requirement" for town expansion conducted by it prior to
proposing the KVTDS - Even though KVTDS has allegedly
been introduced for a population of 16,000 per 40 Hect. of
H land, there is no document !survey report to show how the
RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
725
CHHATTISGARH
said figure was arrived at by the RDA - Further; fre.quent A
changes in the extent of land acquired for the KVTDS by the
RDA is a very strong indicator of the fact that there is no
rationale behind the proposal of the said Scheme - There is
clear non-application of mind on the part of the State
Government be'hind the increase in the sanctioned area of B
KVTDS from 416.93 acres of land to 2300 acres of landTherefore, the Scheme has not been formulated as per
s.50(1).
s. 50 -
Whether the subsequent alteration of land C
acquired, is in consonance

## Text

_Characters 0–39,768 of 180,902. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39768 for what follows._

[2015] 11 S.C.R. 723
RAJENDRA SHAN KAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OR$. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5769-5770 of 2015)
JULY29, 2015
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh
Adhiniyam, 1973:
B
c
ss.14, 17, 38(1) - Town Planning Scheme - Kamal
Vihar Township Development Scheme (KVTDS) -
Formulation of scheme by the Director of respondent No. 2-.
RDA - Whether the KVTDS provide the authority to the 0
Director of respondent No.2-RDA, to formulate Town
Development Scheme and is it in contravention to the 73ro
and 741h Amendments to the Constitution - Held: Once the
Constitution provides for democratically elected bodies for
local self-government, a nominated body like Respondent E
No. 2-RDA cannot assume the role of an elected body and
consequently usurp the.power of the local authority in framing
development schemes and subsequently altering the size
and use of land in the KVTDS -
s. 17 mandates the
requirement of taking into consideration the Annual F
Development Plan of the District prepared under the
Adhiniyam of 1995 - However, in the case in hand, there is
no evidence to show that Respondent No. 2-RDA had taken
into consideration any repo1t'prepared under the Adhiniyam
of 1995- s.14 confers·the power upon the Director of Town G
and Country Planning appointed under the Act, to prepare
development plans - However, this power conferred upon
the Dir/3ctor has to be read along with s. 17 which mandates
the Director to take into consideration, any draft Five Year
Plan and Annual Development Plan of a district prepared H
723
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
under the Adhiniyam of 1995- There is no evidence to prove
that the Director had taken into account any report made
under the Adhiniyam of 1995 - On the other hand, the
evidence clearly shows that the Development Plan has been
altered to suit the requirement of KVTDS - This action by
B the Director is impermissible and unlawful -
Thi~refore,
KVTDS, having formulated solely by Respondent No. 2RDA without taking into consideration the reports of the local
authority, violates the Act of 1973 as well as 73rd and 74th
Amendments to the Constitution - Madhya Pradesh Zila
C
Yojana Samiti Adhiniyam 1995 - Constitution of India, 1950
- Part IX and IX-A; Schedule seventh; List II, Entry 5 -
Chhattisgarh Zilla Yojna Samiti Act, 1995- s. 3 - Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966- s. 65(1) Gujarat Town
0
Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976- s.45(1).
s. 50(1) - Preparation of Town Development Scheme -
Whether KVTDS is formulated as per the provision
mentioned in s.50(1) of the Act of 1973-Held: s.50(1) vests
the jurisdiction on the Authority to declare its intention for
E preparing the Town Development Scheme which in this case
is respondent no.2-RDA - s.49 provides that a Town
Development Scheme can be proposed for the purpose of
town expansion, for rebuilding and regenerating areas which
F have degenerated into slums, acquire and development land
for public, commercial and industrial purpose and also for
other work which would bring about environmental
improvement which shall also be taken up with the prior
approval of the State Government- Respondent No. 2-RDA
G has not put any document on record, either before the High
Court or this Court to show any assessment of "need" or
"requirement" for town expansion conducted by it prior to
proposing the KVTDS - Even though KVTDS has allegedly
been introduced for a population of 16,000 per 40 Hect. of
H land, there is no document !survey report to show how the
RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
725
CHHATTISGARH
said figure was arrived at by the RDA - Further; fre.quent A
changes in the extent of land acquired for the KVTDS by the
RDA is a very strong indicator of the fact that there is no
rationale behind the proposal of the said Scheme - There is
clear non-application of mind on the part of the State
Government be'hind the increase in the sanctioned area of B
KVTDS from 416.93 acres of land to 2300 acres of landTherefore, the Scheme has not been formulated as per
s.50(1).
s. 50 -
Whether the subsequent alteration of land C
acquired, is in consonance with the provisions of the Act -
Held: s.2(u) of the Act of 1973 defines a Town Development
Scheme as a scheme formulated to implement the
developmental plan - In the instant case, the development
plan is the Master Plan of Raipur planning area - The very D
definition clearly states that unless master plan allows use
of a particular area as 'residential', it is not open for
Respondent No.2-RDA to propose a township or a town
development scheme whose land use is at variance with the
one provided in the development plan - Till such time as E
the lands in question is notified for residential use,
Respondent No. 2-RDA cannot propose a Town
Development scheme for the said land - Respondent No. 2RDA is entrusted with a duty to implement the master plan u/ F
s.38(2) of the Act of 1973- Respondent No. 2-RDA, without
any resolution of the Board, on its own motion, addressed a
letter dated 31.7. 2006 and approached the State
Government for change of land use because it had to propose.
the township in Tikrapara, Devpuri and Boriakhurd villages .G
- Thereafter, KVTDS was also proposed, published, finalised
and approved before the land use was changed by the State
Government- Under the provisions of the Act of 1973, the
development plan/Raipur Master Plan Revised 2021 that is
prevailing, Respondent No. 2- ROA as well as th.e State H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 11 S.C.R.
A
Government gave primacy to KVTDS and sought changes
in the master plan to suit K\/TDS - This is impermissible in
/aw-Accordingly, KVTDS is ultra vires to the Act of 1973.
ss.17, 21 and 49 - Whether the Town Development
B Scheme framed in the present case by respondent No.2RDA. in the absence of a zonal plan, is iegal and valid -
Held: Framing of a Zonal Plan by local authority in laying
out a detailed plan of land u0e with sufficient particulars is a
sine qua non under the provisions of the Act- In tl?e case in
C hand, the KVTDS has been prepared in the absence of a
Zonal Plan - It is not possible to define the utilization of land
under the Town Development Scheme unless the Zonal Plan
formulated by the local authority describes with sufficient
particularity the details for which the broadly indicated use of
D land in the Development Plan may be put - Respondent
No. 2- RDA is not permitted to either usurp or bypass the
power vested with the local authorities for preparing town
development scheme in the absence of zoning plan merely
on the ground that the local authority did not exercise its
E constitutional power in preparing the zonal plan following the
direction of Respondent No. 1-State Government uls.20 of
the Act of 1973.
s.50(5), (6) - Whether the Act of 1973 authorises the
F
Town Planning and Development Authority to reconstitute
the plots and change the land use apart from public utilityHeld: Reconstitution of plot for the purpose of town
development scheme is permissible for public purpose only
and that too by following the legal procedure of publication
G ·by the authority in gazette about its intent to acquire land- In
the absence of the same, and also when the purpose for
reconstitution of land is not for public purpose, such
reconstitution of land is impermissible under the Act.
H
s.50 (6)(vi)- Whether. the proposal of the RDA to return
RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
727
CHHATTISGARH
35% of the area of the land taken away from the land owners A
is legally permissible -
Held: In view of decision of
Kesavananda Bharathi case, returning 35% of land in lieu
of acquisition is constitutionally impermissible -
In the
absence of any reasonable procedure arrived at by the
Respondents, taking 65% of the area of the plot as B
development contribution is wholly unfair and arbitrary,· and
is also impermissible as per s.50 (6)(vi) of the 1973 Act -
Respondents were not justified in. returning only 35% of
reconstituted plots and retaining 65% for different purposes C
mentionljJd by them.
s. 50(8) - While planning the KVTDS, whether the
respondents ensured compliance with EIA clearance
procedure from the competent authority- Held: Due to the
change in the scope of the project, Respondent No. 2- RDA D
was required to ·seek sanction for the project from the Central
. Government - The same was not done - Therefore, the
KVTDS scheme also failed to obtain the environmental
clearance requirement which is the mandatory requirement
in law for initiating any project qy the RDA - A faulty town E
development scheme prepared through incompetent
authorities with blatant violation of legal and environmental
procedure cannot be the reason for deprivation of
constitutional rights of the appellants.
F
Words and Phrases: 'at any time' - Connotation of, in
the context of s. 50( 1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Thatha
Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Point no.1. Whether the KVTDS provide
the authority to the Director of respondent No.2-RDA, to
formulate Town Development Scheme and is it in
contravention to the 73'd and 741h Amendments to the
Constitution of India? [Para 8] [752"E-F]
G
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015) 11 S.C.R.
A
1.1. As per Part IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution,
a zonal plan has to be framed by democratic institutions
as prescribed under its provisions. However, in the
instant case, Respondent No. 2-RDA, framed the Town
Development Scheme without consulting or taking into
B account the views of the Panchayat and the District
Planning Committee which are constitutionally
authorized to undertake the task of framing Scheme. The
73'" and 7 41" Amer:idments were inserted in the
ConstitutiOn of India with the avowed object and
C intention of strengthening the local self-governance
both at the village and District level. The Constitution, •
initi~lly did not vest with power on villages or
communities as units. It rather vested power on
0
individual as units of the society. It was proposed by Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of
the Constitution, that the administration of India should
not be carried out at village level since they are ignorant
units of communities immune from the progress of the
E city and are also influenced by social biases and
prejudices. With this biases and prejudices, it was
apprehended that India, at the time during the drafting
of the Constitution, were not suited to be ruled at village
and panchayat level. On the other hand, Dr. Ambedkar
F proposed that there should be a strong Centre governed
by the Rule of Law for the administration of the country.
Formal inclusion of the panchayats in the constitutional
system was deferred for a later time since the framers of
the Constitution deemed it fit to introduce social reforms
G in the village prior to conferring upon them the power of
self-governance, in the light of the constraints faced by
the new republic of India. Article 40, therefore, was
inserted in the Constitution in the form of Directive
Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution
H so as to move towards the vision of introducing local
RAJENQRA SHAN KAR SHUKLA :v STATE OF
729
CHHATTISGARH
governance when the time :;eems fit. [Para 9, 1 O] [753-CA
E; 754-A-B, F-G; 755-A-C]
1.2. Entry 5 in the List-II to the Vllth Schedule of the·
Constitution enables the State Legislature to make laws
pertaining to local government which also include the B
powers to be vested on the Municipal Corporations,
Improvement Trusts, Authorities, Mining Settlement
Authorities, District Boards and other local authorities
for the purpose of village administration and the local
self-governance. The constitutional amendment in 1992C
93 through the 73'd and 74'h Amendment Act provided
for uniformity in the structure in' terms of three-tier local
governments at the District (Zila Parishads- ZPs), Block
(Panchayat Samitis-PS) and Village levels (Gram
Panchayats-GPs). With the constitutional amendment, D
the panchayats are constitutionally expected to move
away from their traditional role of simply executing the
programs handed down to them by higher levels of
government. They are on the other hand, expected to
impl.ement their own programs of economic E
development and social justice. The amendments further
confer power upon the States in the form of Schedule XI
to enlarge the domain of panchayats and to include
functions with distributional consequences. This F
schedule includes key functions such as agriculture,
drinking water, education, irrigation, poverty alleviation,
primary, secondary and adult education, roads and rural
electrification and maintenance of community assets.·
[para 11] [755-G-H; 756-A-E]
G
1.3. In the present case, the District Planning
Committee (DPC) has been constituted under Section 3
of the Chhattisgarh Zila Vojna Samiti Act, 1995 with an
intention to demc;>cratize the town planning process to H .
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A give effect to the legislative intendment. The Constitution
under Article 243ZD directs setting up of a DPC to
consolidate the plans prepared by Panchayats and
Municipalities in the Districts and to prepare a draft
development plan for district as a whole and the Director
B of every DPC shall forward such development plans as
recommended by the Committee to the government of
the State. After the insertion of Part IX-A in the
Constitution, development plan for a District can only
be drawn by the democratically elected representative
C body i.e. DPC, by taking into account the factors
mentioned in Clause (3)(a) (i), (ii) of Article 243ZD. As per
Clause (4) of Article 243ZD, the Chairman of other DPC
shall forward the development plan as recommended by
D the committee to the Government of the State. [Paras 13,
14] [758-G-H; 759-A-D]
1.4. Respondent No.2-RDA was constituted under
Section 38 of the Act of 1973. The Town Development
Scheme framed by Respondent No. 2-RDA, however,
E has to be read in the-light of Section 50(4) which provides
for the approval of the Town Development Scheme by
appropriate authority. Further, an amendment was made
for the State of Chhattisgarh only, with respect to
F constitution of committee for evaluating reconstitution
of plots for the purpose of the Town Development
Scheme. Therefore, in the light of these provisions if read
in harmonious c.mstruction, the Chief Executive Officer
of Respondent No. 2-RDA is not permitted to unilaterally
G prepare a development scheme resulting reconstitution
of land without taking into consideration the opinion and
suggestions of the democratically elected bodies. such
as the District Planning Committee and Officer of the
Town and Country Planning Department, as mentioned
H in the Act of 1973. [Para 15] [764-8-E]
RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
731
CHHATIISGARH
1.5. The Master Plan (Revised) 2021 so prepared is A
in clear contravention of Section 14 of the Act of 1973
read along with Section 17 of the same Act. Section 17
of the Act mandates the requirement of taking into
consideration the Annual Development Plan of the
District prepared under the Madhya Pradesh Zila Yojana · B
Samiti Adhiniyam 1995. However, in the case in hand,
there is no evidence to show that Respondent No. 2- RDA
had taken into consideration any report prepared under
the Act of 1995. On the other hand, there is c
cor.respondence on record to prove that the Respondent
No. 2- RDA, on its own, without taking into consideration
any report, revised the Master Plan 2021 to suit it to the
requirement of the KVTDS. Therefore, the Master Plan
(Revised) 2021 requires reconsideration. [Para 16] [7650
B-E]
1.6. The contention urged on behalf of the
respondents that the committee is authorised to modify
or alter the Development Plan under Sections 14 and 17
read with Section 23 of the Act of 1973 is not tenable. E
Section 14 of the Act confers the power upon the Director
of Town and Country Planning appointed under the Act,
to prepare development plans. However, this power
conferred upon the Director has to be read along with
Section 17 of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no F
evidence to prove that the Director had taken into
account an}' report made under the 1995 Adhiniyam. On
the· other hand, the evidence clearly shows that the
Development Plan has been altered to suit the requisites
of KVTDS. This action by the Director is impermissible G
and unlawful. Therefore, KVTDS, having formulated
solely by Respondent No. 2-RDA without taking into
consideration the reports of the local authority, violates
the Act of 1973 as well as Part IX and IX-A of the H
Constitution. [Paras 23, 24, 25] [771-C-H]
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
1.7. The Development Plan and its modification has
not been made in accordance with the constitutional
mandate and the Act of 1973. It was contended on behalf
of the appellants that the decision of Respondent No.2RDA to add 1900 ac:res of land at different stages, and
B also change of land use, was sullied by bias of Sri S.S.
Bajaj, who acted in different capacities in relation to the
same transaction wherein each authority was expected
to apply its mind independently of each other. The said
contention was well founded. As per the evidence
C produced on 20.07.2009, one Sri S.S. Bajaj, served as
the CEO of the Respondent No. 2- RDA proposed
addition of 1900 acres of land in KVTDS. About 20 days
later, on 10.08.2009, the same Mr. S.S. Bajaj was serving
0
as Special Secretary, Department of Housing &
Environment, Chhattisgarh Government, which is
Respondent No.1 has approved the said addition of 1900
acres of land to the scheme which is a clear case of bias.
It is evident from the evidence that the same person was
E acting in two different capacities who proposed as well
as accepted the plan of addition of land at subsequent
stage. The said proposal was accepted within a span of
20 days only i.e. on 10.08.2009. In view of the said
undisputed facts, the said decision taken by Sri S.S. Bajaj
F as Special Secretary, Department of Housing and
Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh (Respondent
No. 1) in approving the proposal of RDA to include large
extent of land to the KVTDS is vitiated action in law as
the same is tainted with bias and non-application of mind
G on the part of the State Government-Respondent No.1
with regard to the proposal of the Respondent No. 2RDA to include large extent of land in the scheme. [Paras
26, 29] [772-A-E; 775-F-H]
H
1.8. The contention that there was no "Committee"
in place is correct. As per the Order issued by the
RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
733
CHHATTISGARH
Revenue Branch of Respondent No. 2- RDA, the said A
Committee which was to review the scheme under
Section 50(5) of the Act of 1973, was constituted only on
or about 30.11.2009 but the decision to further extend
the land size into the Town Development Scheme can
be traced as early as 14.7.2009 with the report of Board B
Meeting. [Para 30] [777-F]
Charan v. State of Maharashtra 2012 (4) Born CR
40; Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure
Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC
705: 2007 (6 ) SCR 799; Connecticut Fire
Insurance Co. v. Kavanag (1892)A.C. 473, 480;
Gurcharan Singh v. Kam/a Singh (1976) 2 SCC
152: 1976 (1) SCR 739; VL.S. Finance Limited
v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 6 SCC 278: 2013
(8) SCR 849; Greater Mohali Area Development
Authority & Ors. v. Man ju Jain & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC
157: 2010 (10) SCR134; National Textile
Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar Badrikumar
Jagad (2011) 12 sec 695: 2012 (14) SCR 472;
Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International
(1979) 4 SCC 176; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief
Election Commissioner(1978) 1SCC405: 1978
(2) SCR 272; A.K Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors. (1969) 2 sec 262: 1970 (1) SCR 457; ·
The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and
Ors. AIR 1980 SC 319: 1980 (1) SCR 1071; Ml
s. J. Mahapatra and Co. and Anr. v. State of Orissa
&Anr. AIR 1984 SC 1572: 1985 (1) SCR 322 ~
referred to.
c
D
E
F
G
Point No. 2: Whether the Town Development
Scheme in the present case is formulated as per the .
provision mentioned in Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973?
Whether the subsequent alteration of land acquired, is . H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
in consonance with the provisions of the Act? [Para 8]
[752-F-G]
2.1. Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973 states that the
Town and Country Development Authority may at any
8
time declare its intention to prepare a Town Development
Scheme. ]"he phrase "at any time" under Section 50(1)
of the Act is not a charter for the exercise of an arbitrary
decision as and when a scheme has to be framed. The
words 'At any time" have no exemption from all forms of
c limitation for unexplained and undue delay. Such an
interpretation would not only result in destruction of
citizens rights but would also go contrary to the entire
context in which the power has been conferred upon
the authority. Also, a proviso added to Section 50(1) of
o the Act in the year 2012 states that a Development
Authority can declare its intention of preparing Town
Development Scheme only with the prior approval of the
State Government. [Paras 33, 34] [781-G-H; 782-A-B]
E
2.2. Section 50(1) of the Act of 1973 vests the
jurisdiction on the Town and Country Development
Authority to declare its intention for preparin!I a Town
Development Scheme, which in this case is Respondent
No. 2-RDA. Section 49 provides that a Town
F Development Scheme can be proposed for the purpose
of town expansion, for rebuilding and regenerating areas
which have degenerated into slums, acquire and
development land for public, commercial and industrial
purpose and also for other work which would bring
G about environmental improvement which shall also be
taken up with the prior approval of the State Government.
Respondent No. 2-RDA has not put any document on
record, either before the High Court or this Court which
shows any assessment of "need" or "requirement" for
H town expansion conducted by it prior to proposing the
RA.IENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
735
CHHATIISGARH
KVTDS. Even though KVTDS has allegedly been A
introduced for a population of 16,000 per 40 Hect. of land,
there is no document /survey report to show how the
said figure was arrived at by the RDA. The requirement
of such assessment was all the more necessary because
already a new capital called 'Naya Raipur' has been built B
near Raipur. Further, frequent changes in the extent of
land acquired for the KVTDS by the RDA is a very strong
indicator of the fact that there is no rationale behind the
proposal of the said Scheme. Respondent No.2- RDA
had proposed the area of KVTDS to be 900 acres on C
31.7.2006, .1100 acres on 14.11.2006, 394 acres on
3.6.2008 and eventually 2300 acres on 20.7.2009, without
assigning reasons for coming to such conclusions in
expanding the area to the scheme. In view of the above, 0
there is clear non-application of mind on the part of the
State Government behind the incre.ase in the sanctioned
area of KVTDS. In fact, in letter dated 27.8.2008 to the
Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Authority, it
has been specifically noted that physical survey of the E
area must be carried out. However, the proposal to have
KVTDS as well as sanction for the same by Respondent
No. 1-State Government, was not preceded by a survey
of the area, which renders the exercise of its power of
ex post facto survey into an empty formality which action
F
of it is wholly unsustainable in law. Further, the proposal
of the KVTDS is only with the purpose of curbing illegal
plotting which can be served by regulating development
work by exercise of statutory power vested in
Respondent No. 2-RDA under.the Act of 1973. On the G
pretext of regulating development or stopping illegal
construction/ plotting, Respondent No.2-RDA cannot
take away the land of the appellants in exercise of the ·
power of eminent domain by the State Government.
[Paras 35, 36, 37] [783-B-H; 784-A-F]
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A
2.3. Section 2 (u) of the Act of 1973 defines a Town
Development Scheme as a scheme formulated to
implement the developmental plan. In the instant case,
the development plan is the Master Plan of Raipur
planning area. Therefore, the very definition clearly states
B that unless master plan allows use of a particular area
as 'residential', it is not open for Respondent No.2- RDA
to propose a township or a town development scheme
whose land use is at variance with the one provided in
the development plan. Till such time as the lands in
C question is notified for residential use, Respondent No.
2-RDA cannot propose a Town Development scheme for
the said land. Respondent No.2-RDA is entrusted with a
duty to implemenfthe master plan. Resolution dated
D 5.11.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2-RDA proposing
to the State government to get the land use changed
under Section 23A of tre Act in order to implement its
township project either by itself or the CEO, on their own
or in a manner that is inconsistent with the text as well
E the provisions of the Act of 1973. As per the factual
averments of this case, Respondent No. 2- RDA, without
any resolution of the Board, on its own motion,
addressed a letter dated 31.7.2006 and approached the
State Government for change of land use because it had
F to propose the township in Tikrapara, Devpuri and
Boriakhurd villages. Thereafter, KVTDS was also
proposed, published, finalised and approved before the
land use was changed by the State Government. Under
the provisions of the Act of 1973, the development plan/
G Raipur Master Prevised 2021 that is prevailing,
Respondent No. 2- RDA as well as the State Government
gave primacy to KVTDS and sought changes in the
master plan to suit KVTDS. This is impermissible in law.
The finding recorded by the High Court that no finality
H can be attached to the master plan is an erroneous
RAJENDRA SHAN KAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
737
CHHATTISGARH
finding. Accordingly, KVTDS was not prepared in A
accordance with Section 50 of the Act of 197;3 and
KVTDS is ultra vires to the Act of 1973. [Paras 137, 38]
[787-E-H; 788-A; 789-D-H]
'
Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Oevelopm~nt
Authority (2010)7 SCC 129: 2010 (6) SCR 19;
Bangalore Medical Trust v.B.S. Muddappa (1991)
4 SCC 54: 1991 (3) SCR 102 - referred to.
·s
Point no.3
Whether the Town Devel~pment
Scheme framed in the present case by respond1rit No.2- · c
RDA, in the absence of a zonal plan, is legal and valid?
[Para 8] [752-G-H]
3.1. The town development scheme is always
subservient to the master plan as well as the zonal plan, D
as provided under Section 17 of the Act of 1973. Master
plan falls within the category of broad development plans
and is p_repared by only after taking into account the
Annual · Development
Reports
prepared
by
constitutionally elected bodies of local panchayats and E
municipalities etc. A zonal plan is mandated to be
prepared only after the publication of the Development
Plan. Thus, it is evident from the language of Sections
20 and 21 of the Act, that a Zonal Plan can be prepared
only _in adherence to the Development Plan which in the· F
· present case is the Raipur Master Plan of 2021. Next,
Section 49 of the Act which provides for the provisions
for which a Town Development Scheme can be prepared,
has to be read along with Section 21 of the Act, which
clearly mentions that the land required for acquisition G
by the Town and Country Development Authority for the
purpose of any development scheme has to be laid down
in the Zonal Plan. Therefore, a combined reading of
Sections 17, 21 and 49 lays down that the Development
Plan is the umbrella under which a zonal plan is made H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORIS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A for the city. The zonal plan in turn, allocates the land
which could be acquired for town development
schemes. In the absence of a zonal plan in place, .
Respondent No. 2-RDA has skipped the legal mandate
in place for preparation of a Town Development Scheme.
B [Para 39] [790-C-D; E-F; 791-B-E, HJ
3.2. The importance of zonal planning lies in its
distinguished characteristic which lays down with
sufficient particularity the use to which a particular piece
C of land could be put. The object and purpose of the 1973
Act itself foresees that zonal plan is necessary for
implementation of a Town Development Scheme. The
preamble of the Act clearly discloses that a Town
Development Scheme is at best a vehicle to implement
D the Development Plan and Zonal Plan. The provisions
of Sections 49 and 50 of the Act of 1973 categorically
provide for "Development Plan" to mean "master plan"
as well as "Zonal Plan". In the case in hand, the KVTDS
has been prepared in the absence of a Zonal Plan.
E Respondent No. 2- RDA is not permitted to either usurp
or bypass the power vested with the local authorities
for preparing town development scheme in the absence
of zoning plan merely on the ground that the local
F authority did not exercise its constitutional power in
preparing the zonal plan following the direction of
Respondent No. 1-State Government under Section 20
of the Act of 1973. A mere glance at the Master Plan would
clearly go to show that it does not set out the detailed
G land use with sufficient particulars. Therefore, the
framing of a Zonal Plan by local authority in laying out a
detailed plan of land use with sufficient particulars is a
sine qua non under the provisions of the Act. [Paras 40,
41, 42] [792-A-B, F-G; 793-A-C]
H
Point No.4: Whether the Act of 1973 authorises the
RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
739
CHHATTISGARH
Town Planning and Development Authority to A
reconstitute the plots and change the land use apart
from public utility? [Para 8] [752-H; 753-A]
.4.1. Section 50(5) of the Act of 1973, read with
Section 50(6) of the Act of 1973, provides for constitution 8
of a committee which shall determine the various aspects
of a Town Development Scheme such as its viability, cost
effect etc. Section 50(6) of the Act provides that a
committee constituted under section 50(5) of the Act shall
consider the objections and suggestions and give c
hearing to any person desirous of being heard.·
Thereafter, the committee shall submit its report to the
Town and Country Development Authority and, is
required to submit its proposal on these aspects: define
and demarcate areas allotted or reserved for public D
purpose; demarcate the reconstituted plots; Evaluate
value of original plots and reconstituted plots; determine
whether the areas marked for public purpose are wholly
or partially beneficial to the residents; estimate the
compensation or contribution from beneficiaries of the E
scheme; evaluate increment in value of the reconstituted
plot for calculating incremental value; evaluate the
reduction in value and assess compensation payable
therefor. {Para 47] [798-A-G]
4.2. The committee, in the case, in hand, has
recorded in its report only on the first four aspects and
has held the last three aspects as not applicable to the
scheme without assigning any valid reasons. Therefore,
F
in providing this report, the committee has violated the G
mandatory provision of providing a complete report
before acquiring land from landowners which often
results in loss of livelihood for poor agriculturists. The
single judge of the High Court held that the aforesaid
three aspects are not applicable in the present case for H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R.
A the reason that respondent No. 1-State government has
decided not to seek payment of incremental cost/
contribution cost from the land-holder on account of
development of area while prescribing the size of the
reconstituted plots for which respective landholders
B would be entitled. The said view of the single Judge has
been erroneously upheld by the Division Bench of the
High Court. The said view taken by both the single judge
and Division Bench of the High Court is contrary to the
provision of the Act of 1973, since the High Court has
C not noticed in arriving at the aforementioned conclusion
that the committee was not adhering to the mandatory
provisions with regard to development scheme.
Therefore, the scheme is vitiated in .law for lack of
0
compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1973. The
manner in which the computation of increment in the
value of the reconstituted plot has been arrived at, is
vague. [Paras 48, 49, 50] [798-H; 799-A-F]
4.3. Respondent No. 1-State Government granted
E permission to Respondent No. 2-RDA to publish its
intention under Section 50(2)of the Act of 1973, on
25.1.2008 for village Dunda alone. It publi"!>hed its
intention under the said provision for the villages of
Dunda as well as Tikrapara pursuant to the Board
F Resolution by circulations dated 12.5.2009 and 5.6.2009.
Afterwards Respondent No. 1-State Government
granted permission dated 10.8.2009 for increasing the
area of the Scheme to 2300 acres. The Board of the RDA
G issued another resolution by circulation dated 20.8.2009
for inclusion of three villages namely Boriakhurd,
Dumartarai and Devpuri. The Board Resolution is only
for publication of the scheme in the gazette and the same
was for KVTDS Scheme No. 5 and not KVTDS Scheme
H No.4. Pursuant to the Board Resolution dated
RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
741
CHHATTISGARH
20.08.2009, a declaration of intention was published for A
amended scheme on 4.9.2009. The board resolution is
merely for publication of the scheme in the official
gazette. There is no pro)'ision under the 1973Actto issue
. declaration only in so far as amended portion is
concerned. Thus, the inclusion of village Tikrapara is not B
in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the
Act and the entire process had to be commenced de
novo. [Para 53] [800-G-H; 801-A-D]
4.4. The provision under Section 49 of the Act of C
1973 only allows a Town Development Scheme to make
provision for reconstruction of plots for the purpose of
buildings, roads, drains, sewage lines and other similar
amenities. It may be noted that the Maharashtra Regional·
and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the Gujarat Town D
Planning and Urban DevelopmentAct, 1976 specifically
provide for reconstituted plots and the Acts also
provided the procedure to be followed for the same
under the respective statutes. Section 65(1) of the
Maharashtra Act and Section 45 (1) of the Gujarat Act are E
in pari materia. Further Section 49 (viii) of the Act of 1973
empowers RDA to make provision for reconstitution. The
board conferred power upon Respondent No. 2-RDA to
make provision for reconstitution and not for F
reconstruction per se. In any event, such power to make
provision for reconstitution is limited to _certain specified
public purposes, which does not include general
housing scheme. [paras 55, 56] [802-C-E; 803-A, D]
4.5. There is conspicuous absence of any G
empowering mechanism under the Act of 1973 for the
above purpose and no authority has been vested under
.the provision of the Act applicable to Chhattisgarh, to
adjust rights of parties in the land. In view of the said H
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 11 S.C.R
.A
provision, mere prescription or the scope of the activity
in the Town Development Scheme under Section 49 of
the Act will not ipso facto confer the power upon
. Respondent No. 2- RDA to alter rights of landowners in
their properties. This unique anomaly under the Act may
B be contrasted with.the Gujarat Act and the Maharashtra
Act wherein the office of the Town Planning Officer has
been specifically created for the said purpose. Further,
under Section 52 of the Gujarat Act the town planning
officer carries out the task of reconstitution of lands. The
C Maharashtra Act of 1966 confer this right on an Arbitrator
appointed by the State Government. In the light of these
provisions, it is clear that under both the town planning
legislations for Gujarat and Maharashtra States, a specific
0
authority has been statutorily authorized to alter rights
in property and to reconstitute plots, whereas no such
authority has been so empowered under the
Chhattisgarh Town Planning Act, 1973. Therefore,
without an official amendment to the Chhattisgarh Act
E and without following the mandatory procedure, no
reconstitution of land under the Town Development
Scheme can take place. The functioning of the
Committee under Section 50(5) of the Act of 1973 is
dissatisfactory and required the process to be followed
F afresh. The committee constituted under the said Act to
hear objections of the desirous parties, was a mere eye
wash. The committee rejected the objections submitted
by the appellants without providing any reasons for the
same and not even providing any hearing opportunities
G to put forth their objections before the said Committee.
H
Therefore, the recommendations of the Committee did
not carry any weight. This action of the State Government
is vitiated in law and therefore liable to· be set aside.
(Paras 57, 58, 64] (803-E-H; 804-H; 805-C-D; 812-A-C]
RAJENDRASHANKAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF
743
CHHATTISGARH
4.6. The committee took decision to exclude A
agricultural land which was formally taken on 22.6.2010
after acceptance of the report of the Committee dated
8.6.2010. But even before this, vide letter dated 15.4.2010,
CEO of Respondent No. 2- RDA had made it clear to
Respondent No. 1-State Government that agricultural B
land will be excluded. The committee constituted under
Section 50(5) was headed by CEO of Respond~nt No. 2RDA who himself proposed inclusion of 1900 acres of
land vi de letter dated 20. 7 .2009. This affects the rights of
the appellants. For this reason also, they did not receive C
fair hearing from the Committee. The recommendations
of the committee were considered by the Board of
Directors of Respondent No. 2-RQA on 21.6.2010. While
the committee was hearing the objections, there was no 0
freezing of land use and Respondent No. 2-RDA kept on
proposing change in land use. This affected the statutory
rights of the land owners who were entitled to fair hearing
against the acquisition of land. Therefore, in the light of
the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal E
principles laid down by this Court, reconstitution of plot
for the purpose of town development scheme is
permissible for public purpose only and that too by
following the legal procedure of publication by the
authority in gazette about its intent to acquire land. F
Therefore, respondent No.2-RDA could not have
reconstituted plot for any other purpose other than
public purpose. [Paras 66, 67) [812-F-H; 813-A-B; 814D-E, F]
Ahmeda.bad Municipal Corpn. · v. Ahmedabad
Green Belt Khedut Manda (2014) 7 SCC 357;
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana
(2012) 1SCC792: 2011 (14) SCR 1113; Indore.
Development Authority v Madan Lal (1990) 2
sec 334 - referred to.
G
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 11 S.C.R.
A
Point No.5: Whether the proposal of the RDA to
return 35% of the area of the land taken away from the
land owners/appellants is legally permissible? [Para 8]
[753-A-B]
. 5. Since compensation for acquisition of land need
8 to be reasonable and adequate in the interest of justice,
in view of the decision of Kesavananda Bharathi case,
returning 35% of land in lieu of acquisition is held to be
constitutionally impermissible. This is also because the
C 'development' which occurs due to the implementation
of the Town Development Scheme accrues the benefit
to everyone. In the same way, the appellants whose land
has been acquired and proposed to be developed, would
have gained from the development, if at all, as a member
0
of the community gaining from the town development
scheme and not in his individual capacity.