Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a challenge to the draft development plan published by the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation was established in 1982, and a development plan for the additional area was published in 1991. Subsequently, a revised development plan was initiated for newly added areas, including de-notified CIDCO area and Shivaji Nagar, with a declaration under Section 23 published on 7.2.2013. The planning authority was required to publish a draft development plan under Section 26 within two years from that date, i.e., by 6.2.2015, with a possible extension of up to 12 months under the second proviso, expiring on 6.2.2016. The draft plan was published on 4.2.2016, within the extended period, but the extension application was made only on 18.3.2016, after the expiry of the aggregate period. The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2016, quashed the notification dated 4.2.2016, set aside the extension order dated 29.3.2016, and directed the remaining work to be completed by the Divisional Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town Planning under Section 21(4A). The Supreme Court, hearing appeals against this judgment, considered whether the time limits under Section 26 are mandatory and whether ex post facto extension is permissible. The Court noted that the High Court had found the planning authority failed to perform its duty within the time frame, and that the delegated authority lacked jurisdiction to grant extension after expiry. The Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136, observing that the matter did not warrant further scrutiny, especially in light of subsequent government directions for a combined development plan. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's order.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Statutory Time Limits - Mandatory Nature - Section 26, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The High Court held that the time limit of two years for publishing a draft development plan under Section 26 is mandatory, and the planning authority's failure to comply results in deemed failure under Section 21(4A). The Supreme Court declined to interfere, upholding the High Court's view that the planning authority had not prepared the draft plan within the prescribed period. (Paras 6, 10) B) Town Planning - Extension of Time - Ex Post Facto - Section 26, second proviso, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The High Court held that the Director of Town Planning, as a delegated authority, lacked jurisdiction to grant extension of time after the expiry of the aggregate period of 12 months beyond the initial two years. The Supreme Court did not disturb this finding. (Paras 6, 10) C) Town Planning - Deemed Failure - Transfer of Powers - Section 21(4A), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Upon lapse of time fixed under Sections 25, 26, and 30, the planning authority is deemed to have failed, and the remaining work must be completed by the concerned Divisional Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town Planning. The High Court directed such officer to complete the draft development plan. (Paras 10, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the draft development plan published under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was validly prepared within the statutory time frame, and whether the extension of time granted by the Director of Town Planning after the expiry of the prescribed period was lawful.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all civil appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment quashing the draft development plan notification dated 4.2.2016 and the extension order dated 29.3.2016, and directing the competent authority under Section 21(4A) to complete the remaining work.
Law Points
- Statutory time limits under Section 26 of MRTP Act are mandatory
- Deemed failure of planning authority under Section 21(4A) upon lapse of time
- Extension of time cannot be granted ex post facto after expiry of aggregate period
- Competent authority to complete remaining work under Section 21(4A)
