Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a public-spirited person, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the Technical Clearance Order (TCO) dated 14.02.2023 granted by the Senior Town Planner to Isprava Luxury Realty Two LLP and the consequent construction licence dated 13.03.2023 granted by the Village Panchayat of Camurlim. The petitioner contended that the approach road to the property did not have the mandatory 6-metre width required under Regulation 6A.4 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010. The facts revealed that the property was accessible by a road that varied in width from 4 to 6 metres over a 60-metre stretch, and beyond that, the width was less than 6 metres. The court had earlier directed the Inspector of Survey and Land Records (ISLR) to conduct a site inspection, and the report confirmed the width variations. The court noted that the developer had misrepresented the road width as 6 metres in the application, and the Town and Country Planning Department had not properly applied the relaxation provision under Regulation 6A.4(16) nor drawn a site inspection memorandum as required by the High Court's earlier order in Writ Petition No.372 of 2009. The court held that the Technical Clearance Order was granted without application of mind and quashed both the TCO and the construction licence. The court also directed the authorities to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law, taking into account the actual road widths and the applicable regulations.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Technical Clearance - Road Width Requirement - Regulation 6A.4 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 - The court examined whether the approach road to the development site had the mandatory 6-metre width. The ISLR report showed that for a stretch of 60 metres, the road width varied between 4 to 6 metres, and beyond that, the width was less than 6 metres. The court held that the Technical Clearance Order was granted without proper application of mind and without considering the relaxation provision under Regulation 6A.4(16). (Paras 1-10)
B) Town Planning - Sub-division Regulations - Access Width - Regulation 12.6(c) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 - The court considered whether Regulation 12.6(c) requiring 8 metres access for plots with net effective area of 24,470 square metres prevailed over Regulation 6A.4. The court did not finally decide this issue as the petition was allowed on the ground of non-compliance with Regulation 6A.4. (Paras 2, 11-12)
C) Public Interest Litigation - Misrepresentation - Non-application of Mind - The court found that the developer misrepresented the road width as 6 metres in the application, and the Town and Country Planning Department failed to conduct a proper site inspection or draw a site inspection memorandum as directed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.372 of 2009. The court quashed the Technical Clearance Order and the construction licence. (Paras 9-10, 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Technical Clearance Order dated 14.02.2023 and the construction licence dated 13.03.2023 were validly granted when the approach road to the property did not have the required minimum width of 6 metres as per Regulation 6A.4 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, and whether Regulation 12.6(c) requiring 8 metres access applied.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the Technical Clearance Order dated 14.02.2023 and the construction licence dated 13.03.2023. The matter was remitted to the Town and Country Planning Department for fresh consideration in accordance with law, taking into account the actual road widths and the applicable regulations.
Law Points
- Regulation 6A.4 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations
- 2010
- Regulation 12.6(c) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations
- Regulation 12.1(a) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations
- Regulation 6A.4(16) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations
- Mandatory site inspection memorandum requirement
- Non-application of mind by planning authority
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 189
Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No. 14 of 2024
M. S. Karnik, Valmiki Menezes
Mr. Yogesh Nadkarni, Mr. Nilay K. Naik, Ms. Simran Khadilkar, Mr. S. Kamat for Petitioner; Mr. D. Pangam, Mr. Prashil Arolkar for State; Mr. Abhijit Gosavi, Ms. Krupa Naik, Mr. S. Kalangutkar for Respondent No.3; Mr. Fredun De Vitre, Mr. Shivan Desai, Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy, Ms. Tahira Menezes for Respondent No.5; Mr. S. S. Kantak, Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Ms. Saicha Dessai, Mr. S. Kher, Ms. Neha Kholkar for Intervenor
State of Goa, Senior Town Planner, Village Panchayat of Camurlim, Block Development Officer-II, Isprava Luxury Realty Two LLP, Isprava Vesta Private Limited (Intervenor)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging the validity of a Technical Clearance Order and construction licence for alleged violation of road width regulations.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of Technical Clearance Order dated 14.02.2023 and construction licence dated 13.03.2023.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the approach road to the property did not have the mandatory 6-metre width required under Regulation 6A.4 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010.
Previous Decisions
The court had earlier passed an interim order restraining further construction and directed the ISLR to conduct a site inspection.
Issues
Whether the Technical Clearance Order dated 14.02.2023 was validly granted when the approach road did not have the required 6-metre width under Regulation 6A.4 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010.
Whether Regulation 12.6(c) requiring 8 metres access for plots with net effective area of 24,470 square metres prevailed over Regulation 6A.4.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The road width varies between 4 to 6 metres and is less than 6 metres at several stretches; the developer misrepresented the width; the TCP did not apply its mind and failed to consider the relaxation provision or draw a site inspection memorandum as directed by the High Court.
Respondents: The road is 6 metres wide except for a 60-metre stretch where it varies between 4 to 6 metres; the carriage width is more than 3.50 metres as required; the relaxation under Regulation 6A.4(16) applies.
Ratio Decidendi
The Technical Clearance Order was granted without proper application of mind as the Town and Country Planning Department did not consider the actual road width or the relaxation provision under Regulation 6A.4(16) of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010. The developer misrepresented the road width, and the department failed to conduct a proper site inspection or draw a site inspection memorandum as required by the High Court's earlier order.
Judgment Excerpts
By this public interest litigation, the petitioner a public-spirited person is praying for quashing and setting aside the Technical Clearance Order (TCO) dated 14.02.2023 granted by respondent No.2-Senior Town Planner to respondent no.5-Isprava Luxury Realty Two LLP.
The issues raised are : (i) That the Technical clearance dated 14.02.2023 is in violation of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, inasmuch as it did not fulfill the requirement prescribed by Regulation No. 6A.4, which required that the property to be constructed upon should be accessible by 6 metres wide road.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the application was made for the proposed development, there was a misrepresentation by respondent No.5 as regards existence of minimum width of road of 6 metres at site.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation in 2024 challenging the Technical Clearance Order dated 14.02.2023 and construction licence dated 13.03.2023. The court heard the matter, passed an interim order restraining further construction, and directed the ISLR to conduct a site inspection. After receiving the ISLR report and hearing arguments, the court delivered the final judgment on 18.07.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010: Regulation 6A.4, Regulation 6A.4(16), Regulation 12.1(a), Regulation 12.6(c)
