TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a for development as a site for a new town to be known as New Bombay. Concurrently, it declared, in accordance with Sub-section (3A) thereof, the respondent No. 1 to be the New Town Development Authority for that township. Consequent upon such declaration the respondent No. 1 assumed, by virtue of Sub-section (8) of the said section, all the powers and duties of a Planning Authority under the Act including those under Chapter [1] and IV thereof. In due course the respondent No. 1 framed, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 159 of the Act and with the previous approval of the State Government, a set of Regulations called the General Development Control Regulations for New Bombay, 1975 ('Regulations' for short). Regulation 16.3.1 of the said Regulations initially provided that the Floor Space Index ('FSF for short) for divers land use should not exceed 1, On August 24, 1981 the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 passed a resolution to amend the above regulation by fixing different FSIs for divers land uses; and for land use for business and commercial purposes the maximum permissible FSI was fixed at 2. By its letter dated October 21, 1981 the respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible built up area granted under the agreement had been fixed at 3200 sq. metres (on the basis that FSI was 2). Without prejudice to its above contentions, it prayed for provisional permission to construct about 2000 sq. metres, as per the plan submitted by them. In reply thereto the respondent No. 1 communicated to the appellant by its letter dated May 15, 1987 that its plan could not be approved since there was discrepancy in the FSI mentioned in the agreement and the FSI actually approved by the Government. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a petition in the High Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the respondent No. 1 and the State of Maharashtra (the respondent No. 2) to forthwith withdraw and/or cancel the impugned notification dated October 10, 1986 and the letter dated May 15, 1987 and to forbear and desist them from in any manner implementing or enforcing or taking any action on the basis thereof. The high Court dismissed the writ petition with an observation that as the appellant had with open eyes and possibly in collusion with the officers of respondent No 1 had entered into an agreement which was contrary to the Regulations and the law, it was not permissible f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pment plan to the Planning Authority, or as the case may be, the said Officer for modifying the plan as it may direct, or refuse to accord sanction and direct the Planning Authority or the said Officer to prepare a fresh Development plan: X X X (2) X X X (3) X X X (4) The State Government shall fix in the notification under subsection (1) a date not earlier than one month from its publication on which the final Development plan shall come into operation. (5) X X X (6) A Development plan which has come into operation shall be called the final Development plan and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be binding on the Planning Authority. (emphasis supplied) Section 35 provides that if any Planning Authority has prepared a Development plan which has been sanctioned by the State Government before the commencement of the Act then such Development plan shall be deemed to a final Development plan sanctioned under the Act. Section 37 of the Act which relates to the mode and manner of making minor modifications to the final Development plan is extracted below: (1) Where a modification of any part of or any proposal made in, a final Development plan is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore execution of the agreement by the appellant and the respondent No. 1, the State Government had issued the impugned notification in accordance with Section 37(2) of the Act sanctioning increase in the FSI to 1.50 and not to 2 as proposed by the respondent No. 1. The prior sanction of the State Government being the sine qua nor for a final Development plan as also for minor modifications thereof under Section 31 and 37 respectively, the agreement so far as it related to FSI did not, and could not, bestow and legal right upon the appellant. To put it conversely, only on such sanction could the inchoate right under the agreement crystallize into a legally enforceable right in favour of the appellant. 9. Building his argument on the doctrine of estoppel, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prescription of FSI was not a statutory prescription but an administrative decision required to be taken by the respondent No. 1 from plan to plan under the provisions of Section 22(m) of the Act. He argued that since in the instant case the respondent No. 1, as the Planning Authority, took a decision to increase the FSI to 2 for business use of land and entered into a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government grants its approval thereto under Section 159 of the Act. After the FSI is so fixed to comply with the requirements of Section 22(m), it becomes a part and parcel of the Development plan which is to be submitted by the Planning Authority to the State Government under Section 21. Once the State Government grants approval to the Development plan it becomes the final Development plan and binds the Planning Authority under Section 31(6) of the Act. Therefore, any person or violation of any of the terms or contents of the final Development plan or modification in respect thereof without prior sanction of the State Government would amount to a breach of Sections 31 and 37, as the case may be, of the Act. That necessarily means, that in the instant case the increase in the FSI to 2 without obtaining approval of the State Government, is not only a breach of regulation 159 but also of Sections 31(6) and 37(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter and in view of the well settled law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the public bodies or the Government to carry out the representation or promise which is contrary to law or which is outside their a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
