http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: DADAR AVANTI CO.OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, BOMBAY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOMBAY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/02/1996

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   256        1996 SCALE  (2)137

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T PATTANAIK, J      Leave granted.      This appeal  is directed  against the  judgment of  the Bombay High  Court dated  September 14,  1994 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 826 of 1988. The dispute centers round the question as to whether the Municipal Authorities respondents 1 and  2 in  this appeal  could have permitted respondents 3 and 4  to convert  their flats  on the  second floor  of the building (Flat  Nos. 3 & 4) from residential purpose to that of a  commercial one for opening of a Surgical Nursing Home. The Cooperative  Society is the appellant whose members have purchased different  flats in the building in question. M/s. Amar Builders  submitted a  plan to Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay  on July  25, 1979  for construction  of  the building consisting  of the ground floor and other 13 floors at Kasturchand Mills Compound, Opposite Kabutar Khana Dadar, Bombay. The  plan which  was  approved  by  the  Corporation indicated that  the ground  floor was to be used for clinics and  garages   while  upper  floors  were  to  be  used  for residential premises. The said Builder after construction of the building  sold different  flats in  all the 13 floors to various  persons   who  are   members  of  the  society  and respondents  3   and  4   who  happen   to  be  the  Medical practitioner had  purchased flat  nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor. The  grievance of the Society and its members is that the respondents 3 and 4 have converted their flat nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor to a Surgical Nursing Home and thereby they have  not only violated the terms and conditions of the sanctioned plan  but also  by having a Surgical Nursing Home within a residential building is unhygienic and hazardous to the common  living. The  members of  the Society objected to such user  by respondents  3 and  4  before  the  Additional Municipal Commissioner.  In  view  of  such  objection,  the Architect of the building applied for occupation certificate on September  2, 1986  in respect  of  the  entire  building

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

except flat  nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor. The Municipal Corporation granted  provisional occupation  certificate  on January 14,  1987 for entire building except flat nos. 3 and 4 on  the second  floor. The respondents 3 and 4, therefore, made an  application to  the Municipal  Corporation  seeking change of  user of  flats 3 and 4 on the second floor of the building  from  residential  to  commercial.  The  appellant society and  its members  as well as the builder objected to grant of  such permission.  The Executive  Engineer Building Proposals (City)  by  its  order  dated  20th  April,  1987, rejected the  application of  the respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that the proposed user was not in conformity with the existing Rules  and Regulations. The said Executive Engineer had also  indicated in  his order  that the  members of  the Society have  complained about  serious inconvenience  to be caused to  them on account of such user by respondents 3 and 4 by  opening a Surgical Nursing Home. Against the aforesaid order of  the Executive  Engineer, respondents  3  &  4  the Commissioner who by order dated 31st July, 1987 reversed the order of  the Executive  Engineer and granted ’No objection’ certificate for  change of user of flats nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor  on certain  terms and  conditions. One  of the conditions was that separate water supply and drainage shall be provided  by licensed  plumber and  the  ability  of  the structure shall not be disturbed. The appellant society then moved the  Bombay High  Court  by  filing  a  Writ  Petition challenging the  order of  the Municipal  Commissioner which was registered  as Writ  Petition  No.  9740  of  1987.  The learned Single  Judge dispose  of the  matter by order dated August 20,  1987 and allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that there  has been  violation  of  principles  of  natural justice and  the society  had not been given the opportunity of  hearing.   The  learned  Judge  directed  the  Municipal Commissioner to re-consider the matter. After the matter was remanded, the  parties filed their representation in writing before the Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner finally by his order dated December 18, 1987, disposed of the matter and came to the conclusion that the user of the two flats as Surgical  Clinic   is  in   conformity  with   the  existing Development  Control   Rules  and   the  Building   Bye-laws applicable to  Greater Bombay  and further  the occupants of the building  were aware of the fact that the two flats were intended to be used for running a Surgical Clinic. With this conclusion he  permitted change  of user  as sought  for  by respondents 3  and  4.  The  appellant  society,  therefore, challenged the  said order  by filing  a Writ Petition which was registered  as Writ  Petition No.  896 of 1988. The High Court having  dismissed the same by an order dated September 14, 1994 the appellants have approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition.      Mr.  Dave   the  learned   counsel  appearing  for  the appellant contended  that in  view of  the provisions of The Maharashtra   Regional   and   Town   Planning   Act,   1966 (Maharashtra Act  No. XXXVII of 1966 ) (hereinafter referred to as ’The Act’) the permission for the building in question having been  granted with  the specific  condition that only ground floor can be used for commercial and clinical purpose and the  permission for  change of  user having been applied for only  in the  year 1987 at which point of time under the Building Regulations  it was  not permissible  for change of user, the  Commissioner as  well as  the High  Court  wholly erred in  law in granting such permission for change of user merely on  the ground  that such  permission could have been granted when  originally  the  plan  for  the  building  was sanctioned.  According   to  the  learned  counsel  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

appellant an allottee cannot claim to have substantive right of change  of user  and, therefore, when such an application for change of user is made the relevant Regulations in force must  be  adhered  to  by  the  authority  considering  such application.  Consequently,   it  is   contended  that   the Commissioner  wholly  erred  in  law  in  relying  upon  the Regulations of  1066 and  then granting  the  permission  to change over and the High Court also erred in law in granting such permission  for change of user. Learned counsel for the Development  Authority  and  Mr.  Sorabjee,  learned  Senior counsel appearing  for the  allottees in  whose  favour  the permission to  change over  has been  accorded, on the other hand contended, that the authorities were fully justified in allowing the application of the allottees for change of user from presidential  to commercial  since they  could have got this  permission   when  the   plan  itself  was  originally sanctioned  and   the  authorities   rightly  accorded  such permission. The  correctness of  the rival submissions would require an in depth examination of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.      The Act is intended to make provisions for planning the development and use of land and to ensure that Town Planning Schemes are  made in  a proper manner and their execution is made effective.  In a  city like Bombay where there is acute dearth of  vacant sites and where there is rapid increase of population, unless  developmental authorities  are conferred with power  to regulate constructions of building and unless development take  place in  a  planned  manner  it  will  be hazardous for  a healthy  living. With  this end in view the Act has  been enacted  constituting Regional Planning Boards and  providing   for  development  plans  by  a  Development Authority.  The  Act  also  provides  toe  procedure  to  be followed in  preparing and sanctioning development plans and it also  provides for control of development and use of land included in  the development plans. The Act confers power on the Planning  Authority to  take such remedial measure if it comes  to  its  notice  that  there  has  been  unauthorised development. The  Planning Authority  has also  the power to require removal  of authorised  development or  use  if  the authority thinks  it expedient  in the  interest  of  proper planning and its area. Such drastic power has been conferred on the  authority with  the obvious  object  that  the  said authority would  act in a manner which is not detrimental to the human health and the unauthorised development or user of the land  should be  prohibited from such user so that there would be  development of  the city  in a  planned manner. If such unauthorised  user of  the land  is not checked by such Planning Authority  then in  cities like  Bombay  where  the growth rate  of inhabitant  is fast it would be difficult to have a comfortable living.      Before  we   focus  our   attention  to  the  different provisions of  the Act it would be appropriate to notice the admitted facts,  namely, the  builder submitted  the plan of the  building  in  July  1979  which  was  approved  by  the Corporation. The  approved  plan  indicated  that  only  the ground floor  would be used for clinics and garages and rest of the  floors would  be used  for residential purposes. The Architect of  the building even when applied for ’Occupation Certificate’in September 1986 he did not make an application for Flat  Nos. 3  and 4 on the second floor as the allottees were insisting  for using  the  same  as  clinic  which  was contrary to  the sanctioned plan. The respondents nos. 3 and 4 made  an application  in April 1987 seeking change of user of the plots.           Section 2(5)  defines building

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

    operation thus;           ’"building         operations"      includes erection or re-erection of      a building,  or any  part  thereof,      roofing or reroofing of any part of      a building  or of  any open  space,      any    material    alteration    or      enlargement of a building, any such      alteration  of  a  building  as  is      likely to  affect an  alteration of      its    drainage     or     sanitary      arrangement  or  materially  affect      its security-,  or the construction      of a  door opening  on any streets,      or land not belonging to the owner’           Section 2(7)  defines building      operation thus;           "development’     with     its      grammatical  variations  means  the      carrying    out    of    buildings,      engineering,  or  other  operations      in, or  over, or under, land or the      making of  any material  change, in      any building  or land or in the use      of  any   building  or   land   and      includes reclamation, redevelopment      and lay out and sub-division of any      land; and  ’to develop  ’ shall  be      construed accordingly"           Section 2(14)  defines  ’land’      thus;           "‘land’ includes  benefits  to      arise  out  of  land,  and  things,      attached   to    the    earth    or      permanently  fastened  to  anything      attached to the earth"           Section     2(27)      defines      ’Regulations’ thus;           "‘regulation’     means      a      regulation made  under section  159      of this Act and includes zoning and      other regulation  made as a part of      a Regional Plan, Development, plan,      or town planning scheme"      Section 21  in Chapter  III provides  for  preparation, submission  and  sanction  to  Development  Plan  and  under Section 22  the said  Development Plan  shall  indicate  the manner in  which the  use of  land in the area of a Planning Authority shall] be regulated as well as the manner in which the development of land therein shall be carried out.      Section 23  is the  procedure prescribed to be followed in preparing and sanctioning Development Plans.      Section 26  provides for preparation and publication of notice of Draft Development Plan.      Section 28  provides for filing objections to the Draft Development Plan.      Section 43  puts restriction  on  development  of  land which is quoted hereinbelow in extenso:-           "43. After  the date  on which      the  declaration  of  intention  to      prepare a  Development plan for any      area is  published in  the Official      Gazette or  after the date on which      a   notification   specifying   any      undeveloped  area   as  a  notified

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    area, or  any area  designated as a      site for  a new  town, is published      in the  Official Gazette, no person      shall institute  or change  the use      of  any   land  or  carry  out  and      development  of  land  without  the      permission  in   writing   of   the      Planning Authority:           Provided   that,    no    such      permission shall be necessary--           (i) for carrying out works for      the  maintenance,   improvement  or      other alteration  of any  building,      being works  which affect  only the      interior of  the building  or which      do  not   materially   affect   the      external appearance thereof;           (ii)the carrying  out of works      in compliance  with  any  order  or      direction  made  by  any  authority      under any law for the time being in      force;           (iii)  the   carrying  out  of      works by  any authority in exercise      of its powers under any law for the      time being in force;           (iv) for  the carrying  by the      Central or  the State Government or      any local authority of any works--           (a)    required     for    the      maintenance  or  improvement  of  a      highway,  road  or  public  street,      being works  carried  out  on  land      within  the   boundaries  of   such      highway, road or public street;           (b)   for   the   purpose   of      inspecting, repairing  or  renewing      any drains,  sewers, mains,  pipes,      cable, telephone or other apparatus      including the  breaking open of any      street  or   other  land  for  that      purpose;           (v)   for    the    excavation      (including  wells)   made  in   the      ordinary  course   of  agricultural      operation;           (vi) for the construction of a      road intended  to  give  access  to      land   solely    for   agricultural      purposes;           (vii) for  normal use  of land      which has been used temporarily tor      other purposes;           (viii)  in   case   of   land,      normally used  for one  purpose and      occasionally  used  for  any  other      purpose, for  the use  of land  for      that other purpose on occasions;           (ix) for  use, for any purpose      incidental to the use of a building      for human  habitation of  any other      building or  land attached  to such      building"      Section 44  provides for application for permission for development.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    Section 45  is the  power of  the Planning Authority to grant or refuse permission.      Section 46  provides that  the  Planning  Authority  in considering application for permission shall have due regard to the  provisions of  any draft  or final plan submitted or sanctioned under the Act.      Section 52 provides penalty on unauthorised development or for  use otherwise  than in  confirmity with  Development Plan. Said Section is extracted hereinbelow in extenso:-           "52.  (1)   Any  person   who,      whether at  his own  instance or at      the instance  of any  other  person      commences,  undertakes  or  carries      out development  or institutes,  or      changes the use of any land,--           (a)     without     permission      required under this Act; or           (b) which is not in accordance      with any  permission granted  or in      contravention  of   any   condition      subject to  which  such  permission      has been granted;           (c) after  the permission  for      development has been duly revoked ;      or           (d) in  contravention  of  any      permission  which   has  been  duly      modified, shall, on conviction, (be      punished with  imprisonment  for  a      term  which  may  extend  to  three      years,  or   with  fine  which  may      extend to  five thousand  rupees or      with both)  and in  the ease  of  a      continuing   offence with a further      fine  which   may  extend   to  one      hundred rupees for every day during      which the  offence continues  after      conviction for the first commission      of the offence.           (2) Any  person who  continues      to use  or allows  the use  of  any      land or  building in  contravention      of the  provision of  a Development      plan without being allowed to do so      under that  section 45  or  47,  or      where the  continuance of  such use      has been allowed under that section      continues such use after the period      for which  the use has been allowed      or without complying with the terms      and  conditions   under  which  the      continuance of such use is allowed,      shall, on  conviction  be  punished      (with fine which may extend to five      thousand rupees);  and in  the case      of a  continuing  offence,  with  a      further fine  which may  extend  to      one hundred  rupees for  every  day      during which such offence continues      after  conviction   for  the  first      commission of the offence".      Section 54  confers power  on the Planning Authority to stop unauthorized  development and  Section 55 confers power on the  Planning Authority  for removal or discontinuance of unauthorized development.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

    Section 56 confers power on the Planning Authority even to require  removal of  authorized development or use if the Authority feels  that it  is expedient  in the  interest  of proper planning of its areas.      Section 56 is extracted hereinbelow in extenso:-           "56. (1)  If it  appears to  a      Planning  Authority   that  it   is      expedient in the interest of proper      planning of its areas including the      interest   of   amenities)   having      regard  to   the  Development  plan      prepared,-           (a)  that   any  use  of  land      should be discontinued, or           (b) that any conditions should      be  imposed   on  the   continuance      thereof,. or           (c)  that   any  buildings  or      works should be altered or removed,      the  Planning   Authority  may,  by      notice served on the owner,           (i) require the discontinuance      of that use; or           (ii) impose such conditions as      may be  specified in  the notice on      the continuance thereof; or           (iii) require  such steps,  as      may be  specified in  the notice to      be  taken  for  the  alteration  or      removal of  any buildings or works,      as the case may be,      within such  period, being not less      than one month, as may be specified      therein, after  the service  of the      notice.           (2) Any  person  aggrieved  by      such notice  mays, within  the said      period   and    in    the    manner      prescribed,  appeal  to  the  State      Government.           (3) On  receipt of  an  appeal      under sub-section  (2),  the  State      Government  or   any  other  person      appointed by it in this behalf may,      after    giving     a    reasonable      opportunity of  being heard  to the      appellant    and    the    Planning      Authority, dismiss  the  appeal  of      allow the  appeal  by  quashing  or      varying the  notice as it may think      fit.           (4) If any person,-                (i)  who   has   suffered      damage  in   consequence   of   the      compliance  with   notice  by   the      depreciation of any interest in the      land to  which he is entitled or by      being disturbed in his enjoyment of      the land or otherwise; or                (ii) who  has carried out      any works  in compliance  with  the      notice, claims,  from the  Planning      Authority, within  the time  and in      the manner, prescribed compensation      in respect  of that  damage, or  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    any expenses reasonably incurred by      him for  complying with the notice,      then the provisions of sub-sections      (2) and  (3) of  Section  51  shall      apply in  relation to such claim as      those provisions  apply  to  claims      for   compensation    under   those      provisions.           (5)  If   any  person   having      interest in  land  in  respect,  of      which a notice is issued under this      section claims  that by  the reason      of the  compliance with the notice,      the land  will become  incapable of      reasonable beneficial  use, he  may      within the  period specified in the      notice or  within such period after      the disposal of the appeal, if any,      filed under  subsection (2)  and in      the manner prescribed, serve on the      State Government  a purchase notice      requiring his  interest in the land      to be  acquired; and thereupon, the      provisions  of   section   49   for      dealing  with   a  purchase  notice      shall,  so   far  as  can  be  made      applicable, apply  as they apply to      a  purchase   notice   under   that      section."      A combined  reading of the aforesaid provisions and the definitions  of   ’building  operation’   in  Section  2(5), ’development’ in  Section 2(7)  and ’land’  in Section 2(14) make it  explicitly clear  that a  building or  a part  of a building if  it has  been sanctioned for a specific purpose, user of  the same  for any other purpose unless permitted by the competent  Authority, would  be in  contravention of the provisions of  the Act.  It is  indeed  on  this  score  the Architect of  the building  did  not  apply  for  completion certificate in  respect of  flats nos.  3 and  4 allotted to respondents as  they wanted  to use  the same for commercial purposes though  under the  sanctioned plan  only the ground floor has  been permitted  to be  used as commercial purpose and it  is then  in 1987  the respondents  nos. 3 and 4 made application for  change of user. We are unable to accept the submissions  made   by  the   counsel  appearing   for   the Development Authority  as  well  as  Mr.  Sorabjee,  learned senior counsel  appearing for respondents 3 and 4 that since such change  of user  could have  been allowed when the plan was originally  sanctioned there.  is no bar in allowing the same in  the year 1987. lt is conceded that when application fox change of user was made under the regulation in force it was  not  permissible  for  allowing  change  of  user  from residential to  commercial though at later point of time the regulation has  been changed  and  such  permission  can  be accorded subject  to  certain  terms  and  conditions  which includes the  requirement of making an independent excess to the building. Keeping in view the vers object of the Act and regulations made  therein and  keeping in view the fact that regulations are  changed from  time to  time in keeping with the need  of the  time it  is difficult for us to accept the contentions of  the counsel  appearing for  the  Development Authority that  since a  change  of  user  could  have  been granted when the original plan was sanctioned, such a change can be  allowed even  after a  lapse of  two decades. Such a view will  make the  regulations from  time  to  time  fully

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

redundant and will frustrate the very purpose for which Such regulations are  made. It  would be  only reasonable to hold that at  the point of time when a change of user is intended whether the  regulation in  force permits such change and if the regulations  do not  permit such  change  the  concerned Authority will  have no  power to allow such change of user. This being the position we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that  the Commissioner  as well as the High Court totally erred  in law  in holding  that the Commissioner had the power  to allow such change of user even though when the application for  change was  made the  regulations  did  not authorise such  change of user the order on the Commissioner as well as the High court, therefore, is not sustainable.      In course  of hearing  it was also pointed out to us by the counsel  appearing for the Development Authority that in the  subsequent  Regulation  of  1991  (Development  Control Regulation for  Greater Bombay  1991) which  has  come  into force  with   effect  from   25th  March  1991  clinics  are permissible in  residential area  upto second floor with the condition that  there should  be a separate access. The High Court while  dismissing the  Writ Application has taken that into consideration  and has  found that  there has  been  no error  in   granting  permission   in  the   order  of   the Commissioner. It is to be noted that the order of Additional Commissioner is  dated  December  15,  1987,  allowing  such change of  user of  the flats  from residential  to surgical clinic and  the regulation  of 1991  came  into  force  with effect  from  25th  March  1991  and,  therefore,  the  said Regulation should  not have  been pressed  into service  for deciding  the  legality  of  the  order  of  the  Additional Commissioner. In  the aforesaid  premises we  hold that  the Additional Commissioner  had no power to allow the change of user sought  for by  respondents 3  and 4 and the High Court also  committed  error  in  upholding  the  said  order.  We accordingly  set   aside  the   order  of   the   Additional Commissioner as  well as  the  High  Court  and  allow  this appeal. Needless  to mention  that since  the Regulation  of 1991 empowers  the concerned  Authority to  allow change  of user it  would be  open for  the  respondents  to  move  the authority afresh and the said authority may pass appropriate orders in  accordance with  the Regulations of 1991 which is said to be in force. This appeal is allowed.      There will be no order as to costs.