Stay updated with key 2024 High Court ruling on governance of local government, municipalities and panchayats and matter related to Municipal laws. This update offers focused summary of judgments concerning Town Planning, Eligibility to vote for selection of developer, Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS), Scheme of development and Licence requirement for private market.
-
Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Panchayats — Town Planning — Development control and promotion Regulations, 2034 — Regn. 6 — Proposal for cantilevered car parking spaces — Exercise of discretionary power/relaxation under Regn. 6 — When warranted — Held, discretion under Regn. 6(b) can be exercised only when there is clear demonstration of hardship with documented reasons — This discretion does not extend to adjustments in floor space index (FSI) unless explicitly allowed — This relaxation must not affect health, safety, fire safety, structural safety and public safety, fire safety, structural safety and public safety of building’s inhabitants and neighbourhood — Petition disposed of [Rahul Jain v. Municipal Corpn. Mumbai, (2024) 2 HCC (Bom) 85]
-
Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, clearance and redevelopment) Act, 1971 (28 of 1971) — Ss. 3-A(3)(c) & (d) and 13(2) — Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) — Implementation of — Authority and duty of Slum Rehabilitation Authority ( SRA) — Inclusion of structures on DP Road as project affected person (PAPs) in SRS — Petitioners challenging exclusion of DP Road structures from SRS — Whether SRA has authority and duty to include these structure as PAPs in SRS — Held, SRA not only empowered, but also duty-bound to implement SRS, including rehabilitation of slum dwellers from DP Road area — Their inclusion is essential for achieving objectives of the Act — DP Road structure in public interest and necessary for effective urban redevelopment — Objective of the 1971 Act is sine qua non of all redevelopment and rehabilitation project works — Application allowed [Sateri Builders & Developers LLP v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, (2024) 2 HCC (Bom) 110]
-
Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 (36 of 1936) — S. 115 — Notices as condition precedent to institution of suit in respect of any act done or purported to be done in pursuance of the 1936 Act — When not required — Act which is wholly outside provision of the 1936 Act — Suit against Nagpur improvement trust without issuing notice under S. 115 of 1936 Act, if action of trust outside purview of expression “in respect of anything purporting to be done under this Act” — Maintainability of — Held, two months’ notice should be given — Statute creating special jurisdiction must be strictly construed, especially when it has effect of depriving subject of common law right — As soon as powers given under act are transgressed by authority, civil court acquire jurisdiction — Expression “purporting to be done under Act” will not include act which is wholly outside provisions of Act, therefore, notice of two months not mandatory in such situation [Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Jain Kalar Samaj, (2024) 2 HCC (Bom) 269]
-
Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Slum development/rehabilitation scheme — Appointment of developer — Eligibility to vote for selection of developer — Correctness of appointment of ABPL as developer to carry out project is in question — Held, no serious infirmity can be traced in choosing said builder as developer for execution of slum rehabilitation project — Parties at liberty to adopt remedies on such issue independently — Further held, occupants of 13 structures of municipal tenants which are occupied by municipal tenants did not have any right to participate or to vote in meeting of society to choose developer or architect for execution of the project —No valid reason to interfere in order of AGRC for choosing ABPL as developer — Petition dismissed [Moghiben Bhachubai Gami v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 396]
-
Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (28 of 1971) — Ss. 32 and 13 — Implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) — Inordinate delay in getting approval for SRS by petitioner developer — Order of termination of petitioner developer — Challenge to — Held, Circular by SRA provided indicator of timelines to be followed by SRA authorities for implementation of scheme — Petitioner developer failed to explain lack of positive steps taken by petitioner developer, despite ample opportunities and time against inaction or failure on part of SRA authorities failing or refusing to perform their statutory duties — SRA has power to change developer in case of inordinate delay in implementation of scheme — Termination justified — Petition dismissed [Prithvi Infra Projects v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 698]
-
Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Municipalities — Allotment of flats by development authority — Cancellation of allotment of flat after reallocation — Petitioner’s failure to pay last instalment led to cancellation of allotment — Later revoked and flat was reallocated, allotment cancelled again — Held, cancellation of allotment done without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner, which violates principles of natural justice — All letters, cancelling, reallotting and cancelling allotment again, were issued officially, thus, it cannot be pleaded that letter were issued inadvertently and were nullity — Contract did not mention any clause of automatic cancellation on failure to pay instalments — Allotment could not been cancelled — Cancellation of allotment incorrect — Petition allowed [Ram Nath v. DDA, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 194]
-
Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911) — S. 194 — Lapse of sanction after one year from date of such sanction — Whether issue of lapse and failure to complete construction within prescribed period would arise due to actions of sanctioning authority or other statutory entities — Held, failure to complete construction within prescribed period and issue of lapse will not arise where applicant is hindered by statutory authorities from effecting compliances within time-frame — To assert lapse of sanction by municipal Corporation wholly arbitrary and illegal — Appeal allowed [NDMC v. Tek Chand Narula, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 516]
-
Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (21 of 1975) — Ss. 22, 32, 20, 2(2), 2(7), 2(8) and 2(10) — Scheme of development and Licence requirement for private market — Whether SGPDA competent to construct and operate a wholesale fish market — Legality of — Held, all power and functions will have to be broadly construed — Merely because the 1974 Act does not specially refer to construction of wholesale fish market by SGPDA, court cannot conclude that such power was not vested — Further held, expression “Schemes of development” is broader concept and would include providing amenities like markets — Private markets means a market which is not municipal market — S. 252 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (16 of 1968) applies to private markets foe storage or sale of flesh or, flesh or, fish or animal or birds intended for human food — Therefore, SGPDA will have to obtain licence/permission as contemplated by S. 252 of 1968 and provision of food safety and standards act will apply to operation of wholesale fish market — Petition disposed of [Sanjeev Shrinivas Pai Raiturkar v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 137]