Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Housilal Balchand Shah, owned land in survey no. 34 at Anand Valli, Nasik. In the draft development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the entire survey no. 34 was reserved for a botanical garden. However, in the final plan published under section 31, an error occurred: 15,000 sq. meters on the western side was shown as residential zone instead of being part of the botanical garden reservation. The State Government issued a corrigendum to restore the status-quo ante, i.e., to include the entire survey no. 34 in the botanical garden reservation. The petitioner challenged this corrigendum, arguing that it effectively modified the final plan without following the procedure under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37 of the Act, which require republication and fresh notification for any modification. The court analyzed the provisions and found that the corrigendum merely corrected an error that was apparent from the draft plan. The court held that the power to issue a corrigendum is inherent in the administration and does not require the full procedure of modification when the error is obvious and the corrigendum restores the original intention. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the corrigendum.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Corrigendum to Final Development Plan - Rectification of Error - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Sections 28, 31, 37 - The issue was whether the State Government could rectify an error in the final development plan by issuing a corrigendum without following the procedure of republication under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37. The court held that the corrigendum was permissible as it merely restored the original reservation in the draft plan, and the error was apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the corrigendum did not change the character of the plan and was within the power of the State Government to correct mistakes. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government after sanctioning and publishing the final plan under section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, by issuing corrigendum, could restore the status-quo ante without taking recourse to the entire process of republication of notification under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37 of the Act.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the corrigendum was valid and did not require the procedure under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37 of the Act.
Law Points
- Corrigendum to final development plan permissible without fresh notification
- Error in final plan can be rectified by corrigendum
- Sections 28 and 31 read with Section 37 of MRTP Act not mandatory for rectification of error
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (04) 10
Writ Petition No.4997 of 1994
B.H.Marlapalle, D.B.Bhosale
Mr P.S.Dani, Mrs S.S.Bhende, Mr.R.V.More
Shri Housilal Balchand Shah
The State of Maharashtra, The Director of Town Planning and Valuation Department, The Municipal Corporation of the City of Nasik, The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Nasik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of a corrigendum issued by the State Government to the final development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the corrigendum that restored the entire survey no. 34 to botanical garden reservation, arguing it was issued without following the procedure under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37 of the Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's land in survey no. 34 was originally reserved for botanical garden in the draft plan, but in the final plan, 15,000 sq. meters was shown as residential. The State Government issued a corrigendum to restore the entire area to botanical garden, which the petitioner claimed was illegal without fresh notification.
Issues
Whether the State Government can rectify an error in the final development plan by issuing a corrigendum without following the procedure under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the corrigendum effectively modified the final plan and required republication and fresh notification under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37 of the Act.
The respondents argued that the corrigendum merely corrected an apparent error and restored the original reservation as per the draft plan, and no fresh procedure was required.
Ratio Decidendi
The power to issue a corrigendum to correct an apparent error in a final development plan is inherent and does not require the full procedure of modification under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, when the error is obvious and the corrigendum restores the original intention of the draft plan.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a question whether or not the State Government after sanctioning and publishing the final plan under section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, by issuing corrigendum, could restore the status-quo ante without taking recourse to the entire process of republication of notification under sections 28 and 31 read with section 37 of the Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4997 of 1994 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the corrigendum issued by the State Government. The petition was heard by a Division Bench and dismissed on April 17, 2006.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 28, 31, 37
- Constitution of India: 226
