Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs State Of Maharashtra And Others

S.No.,C.S. No.,Area (Sq.mtr.),Name of the Occupier

1.,1092 B/1,1025.00,Smt. Kanta Nanda

2.,1092 B/2,603.00,Sri Premal Malhotra

3.,1092 B/3,2838.00,"Shri Dilip Kumar Roy

Smt. Indira Devi

4.,1092 B/4,444.00 (Road),"Occupiers of Sr. Nos. 1

to 3

Corporation.,,,

By a letter dated 18.1.1997 of the Town Planning and Valuation Department of the State Government at Pune, the Assistant Commissioner",,,

(Special), Pune Municipal Corporation was informed that the Government had finally approved Town Planning Scheme No. I, Pune. However, in the",,,

approved Town Planning Scheme, Plot No. 473B has been divided into two parts and out of that final plot number, 473B has been sub-divided into",,,

four sub-plots. A road with the width of 15 feet measuring 414.14 sqm. has been shown under the ownership of Pune Municipal Corporation.,,,

However, on inspection, it was observed that there was no road in existence. Final plot number 473B was divided into three plots of land and one",,,

separate plot of land shown as open vacant premises.,,,

A layout was prepared and approved by the City Engineer.,,,

On 12.3.1997, Smt. Indira Devi executed a registered trust deed constituting the appellant trust and transferred FP 473-B3 and the internal road to",,,

the appellant trust. The appellant trust wrote a letter to the State Government requesting the State Government to correct the wrong entry in the name,,,

of Pune Municipal Corporation in the B Form.,,,

On 25.4.2000, an order number TPS1697/1271/CR70/ 20000/UD-13 was passed by the Urban Development Department, Government of",,,

Maharashtra. The said order is extracted hereinbelow for convenience: -,,,

“Whereas, Town Planning Scheme Pune No.1 (First variation) has been sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification, Urban",,,

Development Department No. TPS 1879/1064/UD- 7 dated 5.7.1979 and the same has come into force with effect from 15.8.1979,,,

(hereinafter referred to as “the said Scheme’).,,,

And whereas, in the said Scheme Final Plot No. 473B has been subdivided as 473B- 1, 473B-2, 473B-3 473B-4 and internal layout road",,,

(area 444.14 sqmtr.) (hereinafter referred to as “the said roadâ€​).,,,

And whereas the owner of the final plot no. 473B-2 and 473B-3 has requested Government to direct the Pune Municipal Corporation,,,

(hereinafter referred to as “the said Corporationâ€) to vary the said Scheme to delete the said road and include the area in adjacent,,,

Final Plot No. 473B-2 to 473B-4 as per site conditions.,,,

And whereas, the Director to Town Planning vide his letter No. TPS No.I/FP 473B/Shivajinagar/TPV-I/10420 dated 20.3.98 also informed",,,

that as per site condition it is not feasible for the said corporation to construct the said road;,,,

And whereas, considering all these facts, the Government of Mahrashtra is satisfied that it is necessary to vary the said scheme under",,,

Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Actâ€) to delete the said",,,

road and merge the area in adjacent plots and said variation required to be made is not of a substantial nature;,,,

Now, therefore, the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs the said Corporation to undertake the variation to the said Scheme under",,,

sub-section (2) of Section 91 of the said Act in respect of the following:-,,,

a) The said Corporation in accordance with provision contained in Section 91 of the said act shall undertake variation to the said Scheme,,,

to merge the said road area in Final Plot No. 473B-2 to 473B-4 and effect consequential changes in the area of these final plot numbers.,,,

b) The said Corporation shall accordingly prepare and publish and draft variation as per provision laid down in sub-section (2) of Section,,,

91 of the said Act.,,,

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra.â€​,,,

By a letter dated 23.10.2002, the Additional Municipal Corporation Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation informed the Secretary, Urban",,,

Development Department, Government of Maharashtra that the Town Planning Scheme No. I in respect of Plot number 473B had been given effect",,,

without any change in the boundaries of the plot. The plot had been divided into two large plots, one of which had been further sub-divided. The area",,,

of ownership of the plot was to be as per entries in the property register. In the said letter it has categorically been stated that it was necessary to,,,

confirm the area of final plot number 473B as per Town Planning Scheme No. I (first variation), as decided by the arbitrator, for initiating action of",,,

deleting Pune Municipal Corporation from Form B in respect of the road which had been shown in that plot after making sub-division of the said plot,",,,

and to give effect to the Property Card of Pune Municipal Corporation recording the names of the holders of the final plot. The said letter dated,,,

23.10.2002 clearly stated that as per division made during the year 1970, there was no road. However, a road would have to be provided for",,,

approaching the plot of Shri Nanda.,,,

From the said letter dated 23.10.2002, it appears that, as per Resolution No.117 taken at the General Body meeting of the Pune Municipal",,,

Corporation on 21.5.2001, approval had been given for necessary action for changes as per Section 93 of the Regional and Town Planning Act and",,,

notice dated 23.8.2001 to that effect published in the Gazette of Maharashtra.,,,

By a notice dated 8.9.2004, the Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation invited objections against the proposal for merging the",,,

internal road with the adjoining sub plots 473 B1, B2, B3 and B4. There does not appear to have been any objection.",,,

Thereafter, by a Resolution No. 611 dated 23.3.2006, the Pune Municipal Corporation adopted the following resolution:-",,,

“Perused the letter on the subject of the Hon’ble Municipal Commissioner and taking into consideration recommendation of the,,,

Improvement Committee:,,,

After cancelling internal road of Plot No. 473B at Shivaji Nagar and after declaring the same as No-development zone no. F.S.I. should be,,,

granted in respect of the road which has been cancelled. Similarly as shown in the affidavit of the Plot Holder Applicant in front of the plot,,,

of plot No. 473B- 1, approval is being provided to give the opinion of Municipal Corporation for providing the road available.â€​",,,

By a letter dated 5.4.2006, the City Engineer, Pune Municipal Corporation informed the Municipal Commissioner that the internal road in plot",,,

number 473B as shown in the layout measuring 444.14 sq. meters had been merged and included in adjacent sub plot number 473 B-2 and accordingly,,,

orders had been issued to implement the decision as per Section 92(2) of the Regional and Town Planning Act. In pursuance of Resolution number,,,

117 dated 24.6.2001, sanction was being given for making changes as per Section 91 of the Regional and Town Planning Act.",,,

Thereafter the Municipal Commissioner wrote a letter to the State Government on 7.4.2006 submitting a proposal for approval of variation in the,,,

Town Planning Scheme under Section 91 of the Regional and Town Planning Act.,,,

By an order dated 3.5.2006 impugned in the writ petition, the Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra rejected the proposal",,,

for modification of the Scheme under Section 91 with the following observations:-,,,

The proposal had been opposed by the Pune Municipal Corporation, who is the owner in respect of the land.",,,

Non-compliance of legal requirements in connection with the proposal.,,,

It could not be assumed that the Trust would grant permission to the plot holders of 473B for using the private road of the adjacent,,,

society.,,,

It has been considered a basic necessity of the Town Planning Scheme to have approach road for every plot.,,,

The deletion of the road would mean that the road would not be available for new plots of land.,,,

The finding that the Pune Municipal Corporation was the owner of the land is patently contrary to official records and smacks of patent error. In,,,

any case the impugned order is totally vague in the absence of any whisper of the legal requirements alleged to have not been complied with.,,,

The observation in the impugned order, that it could not be assumed that the appellant Trust would grant permission to other plot holders of Plot",,,

No.473B is speculative and conjectural, overlooking the usage of the vacant land (Plot No.473 B-4) for several decades as also the statutory records",,,

including the Award of the Arbitrator in terms whereof Plot 473 B4 was shown to be held by the owners of Plot Nos. 473 B1, 473 B2 and 473 B3. In",,,

any case, none of the owners of the adjacent plots had raised any objection to the modification. Furthermore, the attention of the authorities had duly",,,

been drawn to the express terms of the will of Sm. Indira Devi giving the easementary rights to owners of adjacent plots of access through the plot,,,

held by her. If the Planning Authority felt it necessary to provide approach roads, it was incumbent upon it to acquire land in accordance with law,",,,

upon payment of compensation to its owners or alternatively purchase the same by negotiation.,,,

By a letter dated 9.8.2007, the Appellant Trust drew the attention of the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra to relevant facts pertaining to the",,,

road, and in particular, to the fact that Smt. Indira Devi had in her will bequeathed to the other plot owners access through the plot. The appellant",,,

Trust requested the Government to delete the name of Pune Municipal Commissioner wrongly entered in the property register.,,,

The appellants filed the writ petition being Writ Petition No.904 of 2008 in the Bombay High Court challenging the said order dated 3.5.2006. The,,,

writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal. The High Court found that the land in question had vested, without any",,,

encumbrances, in the Pune Municipal Corporation at the time of commencement of the Town Planning Scheme, by virtue of Section 88 of the",,,

Regional and Town Planning Act.,,,

The High Court has apparently misconstrued Section 88, reading the same in a narrow, pedantic manner in isolation from other relevant provisions",,,

of the Regional and Town Planning Act, as discussed later in the judgment.",,,

The High Court has failed to address the question of how the name of Pune Municipal Corporation could all of a sudden be shown as the owner of,,,

the internal road with effect from 4th March 1986, in complete disregard of all records. The High Court has, with the greatest of respect, failed to",,,

apply its mind to relevant facts, particularly the records of the Pune Municipal Corporation with regard to property holders, the Arbitrator’s Award",,,

dated 16.5.1972 under section 72 of the Regional and Town Planning Act and the admission of Pune Municipal Corporation that the road did not,,,

belong to it, it was never acquired and that the name of Pune Municipal Corporation had wrongly been recorded. Rather, the High Court records that",,,

the Respondent authorities have not disputed facts in their counter affidavit, but only claimed that the land had vested under Section 88 and that it was",,,

not feasible to make changes in the Scheme.,,,

The finding of the High Court that it was never the case of the petitioner that the land had not vested, is misconceived. First of all there does not",,,

appear to be any admission of vesting on the part of the Appellant Trust. In any case land can only vest in accordance with law. If the land has not,,,

vested, a mistaken admission would make no difference, for there can be no estoppel against the Constitution of India, or any statute.",,,

Significantly, the High Court has, in its judgment and order under appeal, duly recorded the submission that Pune Municipal Corporation had by its",,,

Resolution No.611 passed on 23rd March, 2006 resolved not to claim any right in respect of Final Plot No.B4.",,,

The High Court failed to appreciate that the mere sanctioning of a Town Planning Scheme would not wipe out a patently erroneous recording in,,,

the scheme. The High Court did not examine how the road measuring 414.14 square meters could have been allotted to Pune Municipal Corporation.,,,

Furthermore, the High Court came to the conclusion that since any variation had to be in the light of the provisions of Section 91, the same would",,,

be applicable to the given case which would permit only a variation or modification of a minor nature. The High Court found the deletion of a public,,,

road from the Town Planning Scheme, to be a variation of a substantial nature, which could not be permitted, since it would be hit by the bar inherent",,,

in the Section.,,,

The condition precedent for variation of a scheme under Section 91 is an error, irregularity or informality. There can hardly be any doubt that the",,,

Scheme smacks of apparent error, irregularity and infirmity in so far as it records Pune Municipal Corporation as the owner of the private road. A",,,

variation of the Scheme by recording the name of the true owner cannot be a substantial variation. It is nobody’s case that the road is a public,,,

road. The finding of the High Court that the change of a public road into a private road was variation of a substantial nature, is ex facie erroneous and",,,

inconsistent with facts as recorded in the judgment and order itself.,,,

In 1966 the Maharashtra State Legislature enacted the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the",,,

Regional and Town Planning Act’) to make provision for planning and development and use of land in Regions established for that purpose, and",,,

for the constitution of Regional Planning Boards therefor; to make better provision for the preparation of Development Plans with a view to ensuring,,,

that Town Planning Schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective; to provide for the creation of new towns by means,,,

of Development Authorities; to make provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land required for public purposes in respect of the plans; and for,,,

purposes connected therewith.,,,

Section 3 of the Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 empowers the State Government to establish by notification any area in the State by",,,

defining its limits, to be region for the purposes of the said Act and to name and alter the name of any such region. Section 4 read with Section 8 of",,,

the Regional and Town Planning Act provides for the constitution of Regional Planning Boards:-,,,

(a) to carry out a survey of the Region, and prepare reports on the surveys so carried out;",,,

(b) to prepare an existing-land-use map and such other maps as may be necessary, for the purpose of preparing a Regional Plan;",,,

(c) to prepare a Regional Plan;,,,

(d) to perform any other duties or functions as are supplemental, incidental or consequential to any of the foregoing duties, or as may be prescribed by",,,

regulations.,,,

Sections 21(1), (2) and (3) of the Regional and Town Planning Act as it stood at the material time provided:-",,,

“21. Development Plan:- (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, but not later than three years after such",,,

commencement, and subject however to the provisions of this Act, every Planning Authority shall carry out a survey, prepare an existing",,,

land- use map and prepare a draft development plan for the area within its jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of a Regional",,,

plan, where there is such a plan [publish a notice in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed stating that the",,,

draft development plan has been prepared] and submit the plan to the State Government for sanction. The Planning Authority shall also,,,

submit a quarterly Report to the State Government about the progress made in carrying out the survey and prepare the plan.,,,

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Planning Authority constituted after the commencement of this Act shall, not later than three",,,

years from the date of its constitution, [declare its intention to prepare a draft Development plan, prepare such plan and publish a notice of",,,

such preparation in the Official Gazette] and in such other manner as may be prescribed] and [submit the draft development plan] to the,,,

State Government for sanction.,,,

[(3) On an application made by any Planning Authority, the State Government may, having regard to the permissible period specified in the",,,

preceding sections, from time to time, by order in writing and for adequate reasons to be specified in such order, extend such period.]â€​",,,

Section 21 provides that a development plan shall generally indicate the manner in which the use of land in the area of the Planning Authority shall,,,

be regulated and also indicate the manner in which the development of land therein shall be carried out.,,,

Section 51 of the Regional and Town Planning Act empowers the Planning Authority to revoke or modify any permission to develop as per,,,

development plan to such extent as appears to be necessary after giving the person concerned an opportunity of hearing.,,,

Section 59 of the Regional and Town Planning Act enables a Planning Authority to prepare Town Planning Schemes for the area within its,,,

jurisdiction, or any part thereof, for the purpose of implementing proposals for development. Section 59(b) of the Regional and Town Planning Act",,,

provides that a Town Planning Scheme might make provisions for the matters specified in the said Section, which includes, inter alia, proposals for",,,

allocating the use of land for residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural or recreational purposes, proposals for designation of lands for public",,,

purposes such as schools, colleges and other educational institutions, medical and public health institutions, markets, social welfare and cultural",,,

institutions, theaters and places of public entertainment, transport and communications such as roads, highways, railways, waterways, canals, airports",,,

etc. water supply, sewage etc.",,,

The Town Planning Scheme might also make provisions, apart from the matters specified in Section 22, inter alia, relating to laying out or re-laying",,,

out of land, either vacant or already built upon, including areas of comprehensive development ; layout of new streets or roads, construction, diversion,",,,

extension, alteration, improvement and closing up of streets and roads etc; the construction, alteration and removal of buildings, bridges and other",,,

structures; allotment or reservation of land for open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets, green-belts, dairies, transport facilities and",,,

public purposes of all kinds; drainage, including sewerage, surface or sub-soil drainage and sewage disposal; lighting; water supply; preservation of",,,

objects of historical or national interest or natural beauty, and of buildings used for religious purposes or other objects.",,,

Section 59 of the Regional and Town Planning Act is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience:,,,

“59. Preparation and contents of town planning scheme: - [(1)] Subject to the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in,,,

forceâ€",,,

(a) a Planning Authority may for the purpose of implementing the proposals in the final Development plan prepare [or in respect of any,,,

land which is likely to be in the course of development or which is already built upon], prepare one or more town planning schemes for the",,,

area within its jurisdiction, or any part thereof ;",,,

(b) a town planning scheme may make provision for any of the following matters, that is to sayâ€"",,,

(i) any of the matters specified in section 22 ;,,,

(ii) the laying out or re-laying out of land, either vacant or already built upon, including areas of comprehensive development;",,,

[(ii-a) the filling-up or reclamation of low-lying, swampy or unhealthy area, or levelling-up of land;",,,

(ii-b) layout of new streets or roads, construction, diversion, extension, alteration, improvement and closing up of streets and roads and",,,

discontinuance of communications;,,,

(ii-c) the construction, alteration and removal of buildings, bridges and other structures;",,,

(ii-d) the allotment or reservation of land for open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets, green-belts, dairies, transport",,,

facilities and public purposes of all kinds;,,,

(ii-e) drainage, inclusive of sewerage, surface or sub-soil drainage and sewage disposal;",,,

(ii-f) lighting;,,,

(ii-g) water supply;,,,

(ii-h) the preservation of objects of historical or national interest or natural beauty, and of building actually used for religious purposes;]",,,

(iii) the suspension, as far as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of the scheme, of any rule, bye-law, regulation, notification or",,,

order made or issued under any law for the time being in force which the Legislature of the State is competent to make;,,,

(iv) such other matter not inconsistent with the object of this Act, as may be directed by the State Government.",,,

[(2) In making provisions in a draft town planning scheme for any of the matters referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), it shall be",,,

lawful for a Planning Authority with the approval of the Director of Town Planning and subject to the provisions of section 68 to provide,,,

for suitable amendment of the Development plan.],,,

Section 61 enables the Planning Authority to make a draft scheme for an area, in respect of which a declaration is made. In case of failure to",,,

make a draft scheme within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 61 or within the period as extended by sub-section (3), the declaration is",,,

to lapse. However notwithstanding such lapse the Planning Authority is not debarred from making a fresh declaration. The time to make a draft,,,

scheme may on an application of the Planning Authority be extended by the State Government, subject to the limitation in Section 61(3) a first",,,

declaration.,,,

If at any time before a draft scheme is prepared and submitted to the State Government for sanction, the Planning Authority or its officers are of",,,

the opinion or on any representation made to them, that an additional area be included within the same scheme, the Planning Authority or the officer",,,

may, after informing the State Government and giving notice in the Official Gazette, and also in one or more local newspapers include such additional",,,

area in the scheme, and thereupon all the provisions of Sections 59, 60 and 61 are to apply in relation to such additional area as they apply to any",,,

original area of the scheme, and draft scheme is to be prepared for the original area and the additional areas.",,,

Section 63 of the Regional and Town Planning Act enables the State Government to require any Planning Authority to make and submit and,,,

sanction a draft scheme in respect of any land with regard to which a Town Planning Scheme may be made.,,,

If the Planning Authority fails to make the declaration of intention to make a scheme within three months from the date of direction made under,,,

sub-section (1), the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint an officer to make and submit the draft scheme for the land",,,

to the State Government [after a notice regarding its making has been duly published as aforesaid] and thereupon the provisions of sections 60, 61 and",,,

62 shall, as far as may be applicable, apply to the making of such a scheme.",,,

Section 64 provides as follows:-,,,

“64. Contents of draft Scheme. - A draft scheme shall contain the following particulars so far as may be necessary, that is to say,â€"",,,

(a) the ownership, area and tenure of each original plot ;",,,

(b) reservation, acquisition or allotment of land required under sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of section 59 with the general indication of the",,,

uses to which such land is to be put and the terms and conditions subject to which, such land is to be put to such uses ;",,,

(c) the extent to which it is proposed to alter the boundaries of the original plots by reconstitution ;,,,

(d) an estimate of the total cost of the scheme and the net cost to be borne by the Planning Authority ;,,,

(e) a full description of all the details of the scheme with respect to such matters referred to in clause (b) of section 59 as may be applicable,,,

;,,,

(f) the laying out or re-laying out of land either vacant or already built upon including areas of comprehensive development ;,,,

(g) the filling up or reclamation of low lying, swamp or unhealthy areas or levelling up of land ;",,,

(h) any other prescribed particulars.â€​,,,

A draft scheme is to contain particulars of the ownership, area and tenure of each original plot; reservation, acquisition or allotment of land",,,

required under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of section 59 with a general indication of the uses to which such land is to be put and the terms and,,,

conditions subject to which, such land is to be put to such uses; the extent to which it is proposed to alter the boundaries of the original plots by",,,

reconstitution; a full description of all the details of the scheme with respect matters referred to in clause (b) of section 59 as might be applicable.,,,

Section 65 provides as follows:-,,,

“65. Reconstituted plot- (1) In the draft scheme, the size and shape of every reconstituted plot shall be determined, so far as may be, to",,,

render it suitable for building purposes, and where a plot is already built upon, to ensure that the buildings as far as possible comply with",,,

the provisions of the scheme as regards open spaces.,,,

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a draft scheme may contain proposalsâ€"",,,

(a) to form a final plot by reconstitution of an original plot by alteration of the boundaries of the original plot, if necessary ;",,,

(b) to form a final plot from an original plot by the transfer wholly or partly of the adjoining lands ;,,,

(c) to provide, with the consent of the owners, that two or more original plots each of which is held in ownership in severally or in joint",,,

ownership shall hereafter, with or without alteration of boundaries be held in ownership in common as a final plot ;",,,

(d) to allot a final plot to any owner dispossessed of land in furtherance of the scheme; and,,,

(e) to transfer the ownership of an original plot from one person to another.â€​,,,

Section 65 provides that in the draft scheme, the size and shape of every reconstituted plot shall be determined, so far as may be, to render it",,,

suitable for building purposes, and where a plot is already built upon, to ensure that the buildings as far as possible comply with the provisions of the",,,

Scheme as regards open spaces. A draft scheme may contain proposals to form a final plot by reconstitution of an original plot, if necessary, by",,,

alteration of the boundaries of the original plot ; to form a final plot from an original plot by the transfer wholly or partly of the adjoining lands; to,,,

provide, with the consent of the owners, that two or more original plots each of which is held in ownership severally or in joint ownership shall with or",,,

without alteration of boundaries be held in ownership in common; to allot a final plot to any owner dispossessed of land in furtherance of the scheme,,,

and to transfer the ownership of an original plot from one person to another.,,,

None of the provisions referred to above enable the Planning Authority or any other authority to divest an owner of his/her property. Rather,",,,

Section 64 mandates that a draft scheme is to contain particulars of ownership area and tenure of each original plot. Any transfer or any alteration of,,,

boundary, amalgamation or separation has to be with the consent of the owner in view of the express mandate of Section 65. Implicit in Section 65 is",,,

that a transfer must be for consideration.,,,

Section 66 provides :-,,,

“66. Compensation for discontinuation of use - Where under sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of section 59 the purposes to which the,,,

buildings or areas may not be appropriated or used in pursuance of clause (m) of section 22 have been specified, then the building or area",,,

shall cease to be used for a purpose other than the purposes specified in the scheme within such time as may be specified in the final,,,

scheme, and the person affected by this provision shall be entitled to such compensation from the Planning Authority as may be determined",,,

by the Arbitrator:,,,

Provided that, in ascertaining whether compensation be paid, the time within which the person affected was permitted to change the user",,,

shall be taken into consideration.â€​,,,

Section 68 provides as follows:-,,,

“68. Power of State Government to sanction draft scheme - (1) The Planning Authority or, as the case may be, the officer aforesaid shall,",,,

not later than six months [from the date of the publication of the notice, in the Official Gazette, regarding the making of the draft scheme],",,,

submit the same with any modifications which it or he may have made therein together with a copy of objections received by it or him to the,,,

State Government, and shall at the same time apply for its sanction.",,,

(2) On receiving such application, after making such inquiry as it may think fit and consulting the Director of Town Planning, the State",,,

Government may, not later than [three months] from the date of its submission, by notification in the Official Gazette, [or not later than such",,,

further time as the State Government may extend] either sanction such draft scheme with or without modifications and subject to such,,,

conditions as it may think fit to impose or refuse to give sanction.,,,

(3) If the State Government sanctions such scheme, it shall in such modification state at what place and time the draft scheme shall be open",,,

to the inspection of the public [and the State Government shall also state therein that copies of the scheme or any extract therefrom certified,,,

to be correct shall on application be available for sale to the public at a reasonable price.]â€​,,,

Section 68 empowers the Planning Authority of the State Government to sanction the draft scheme not later than six months. Section 71 provides:-,,,

“71. Disputed ownership:- (1) Where there is a disputed claim as to the ownership of any piece of land included in an area in respect of,,,

which a declaration of intention to make a town planning scheme has been made and any entry in the record of rights or mutation register,,,

relevant to such disputed claim is inaccurate or inconclusive, an inquiry may be held on an application being made by the Planning",,,

Authority or the Arbitrator at any time prior to the date on which the arbitrator draws up the final scheme under clause (xviii) of sub-section,,,

(3) of section 72 by such officer as the State Government may appoint for the purpose of deciding who shall be deemed to be owner for the,,,

purposes of this Act.,,,

(2) Such decision shall not be subject to appeal but it shall not operate as a bar to a regular suit.,,,

(3) Such decision shall, in the event of a civil court passing a decree which is inconsistent therewith, be corrected, modified or rescinded in",,,

accordance with such decree as soon as practicable after such decree has been brought to the notice of the Planning Authority either by,,,

the Civil Court or by some person affected by such decree.,,,

(4) Where such a decree of the civil court is passed, after final scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government under section 86, such",,,

final scheme shall be deemed to have been suitably varied by reason of such decree.â€​,,,

Section 71 provides that where there is disputed claim as to the ownership of any piece of land included in an area in respect of which a,,,

declaration of intention to make a Town Planning Scheme has been made, and any entry in the record of rights or mutation register relevant to such",,,

disputed claim is inaccurate or inconclusive, an inquiry may be held on an application being made by the Planning Authority or the Arbitrator at any",,,

time prior to the date on which the arbitrator draws up the final scheme under clause (xviii) of sub-section (3) of section 72 by such officer as the,,,

State Government may appoint for the purpose of deciding who shall be deemed to be owner for the purposes of this Act. Although the decision of the,,,

Arbitrator is not subject to appeal in view of sub-section (2) of the Section 71, the award is not to operate as a bar to regular suit. In case there is any",,,

decree in a Civil Suit, inconsistent with the Award, the Award is to be connected, modified or rescinded and in case the decree is passed after",,,

sanction of a final Scheme, such final scheme is to be deemed to have been suitably varied, by reason of such decree.",,,

Section 72 of the Regional and Town Planning Act enables the State Government to appoint an Arbitrator for the purposes of one or more,,,

planning schemes received by it. Section 73 provides:-,,,

“73. Certain decisions of Arbitrator to be final.- Except in matters arising out of Section 72, every decision of the Arbitrator shall be final",,,

and conclusive and binding on all parties including the Planning Authority.â€​,,,

Section 74 as it stood at the material time provided:-,,,

Appeal.- (1) Any decision of the Arbitrator under clauses (iv) to (xi) to (xi) both inclusive and clauses (xiv), (xv and (xvi) of sub-section",,,

3 of section 72 shall be forthwith communicated to the party concerned including the Planning Authority; and any party aggrieved by such,,,

“1092 B1,1025,Smt. Kanta Nanda,

1092 B2,603,Shri Premal Malhotra,

1092 B3,2838,"Shri Dilip Kumar Roy

Smt. Indira Devi",

1092 B4,444(Road),Holders of Sl. No. 1 to 3â€​,

473 B3,2335.03,"Shri Dilip Kumar Roy

Smt. Indira Devi",

473 B4,502.82,"Shri Dilip Kumar Roy

Smt. Indira Devi",

Road,444.14,Pune Municipal Corporation â€​,

Mr. Adkar also submitted that the High Court has recorded a finding that the suit land stood vested in the Pune Municipal Corporation in 1979,",,,

when the Town Planning Scheme became final. This finding is patently incorrect.,,,

Mr. Adkar argued that the Appellant had itself contended that in view of the documentary evidence, particularly the city survey records and the",,,

award of the Arbitrator, the correction in the town planning record can be made even de hors Section 91 of the Regional and Town Planning Act, and",,,

accordingly invited this Court to make orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.,,,

Mr. Adkar submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the Appellants purported to bring on record certain new facts which had been",,,

discovered, without leave of this Court. The respondents therefore did not have occasion to respond to new facts and documents. Mr. Adkar",,,

submitted that the award or city survey record, now referred to, did not find reference in the decision of the High Court. The Appellant had produced",,,

certain documents purportedly issued by certain departments of the Corporation for the first time. The Corporation did not have occasion to respond to,,,

the same.,,,

This Court has only proceeded on the basis of pleadings and documents in the Special Leave Petition to which the Respondents had ample,,,

opportunity to respond. The Award and the City Survey papers are matters of record. The records are in the custody of the Respondents.,,,

Mr. Adkar emphasized on the fact that the High Court had recorded specific finding regarding ownership of the Corporation as per Town Planning,,,

Scheme, with which we are unfortunately unable to agree. He argued that the High Court found that title had statutorily vested in the Corporation",,,

under Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act and the only method to change or vary the Town Planning Scheme was under Section 91 of,,,

the Regional and Town Planning Act.,,,

Mr. Adkar argued that the submission of the Appellant that the scheme could be varied de hors Section 91 of the Regional and Town Planning,,,

Act, rendered the appeal liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Mr. Adkar argued that it was settled that the land in question stood vested in the",,,

Pune Municipal Corporation by virtue of Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act. Such argument is not sustainable in law.,,,

Mr. Adkar submitted that the Government had rejected the proposal under Section 91 of Regional and Town Planning Act recording reasons,",,,

which cannot be assailed by submissions which were not advanced either before the Government or before the High Court. The affidavit of the,,,

trustees made in this Court for the first time cannot be examined.,,,

Mr. Adkar submitted that Municipal Corporation had tendered a true copy of Form I prepared under Rule 6(V) of the Rules for consideration of,,,

this Court. The copy has been produced from the custody of the Corporation and its authenticity has not been questioned either by the Appellant or by,,,

the State.,,,

Under the said rules, there are five forms which had to be filled in as the Town Planning Scheme progressed, the final Form being No.5 under",,,

Rule 13(9). The relevant documents pertaining to proceedings of the Town Planning Scheme are in the Town Planning Department of the Pune,,,

Municipal Corporation and the Town Planning Department of the State Government. Mr. Adkar submitted that the content of Form I indicates that the,,,

suit land in question belonged to the Pune Municipal Corporation even before the Town Planning Scheme came into existence in 1979, and as such",,,

entry was never questioned or disputed by any of the parties for approximately two decades, the Town Planning Scheme ought not to be disturbed.",,,

There is, however no whisper from the Respondents of any proceedings, if any, resorted to for transfer of the private road to Pune Municipal",,,

Corporation, and not even any specific averment by the Respondents that the Appellant had the opportunity to controvert the entries in the Forms in",,,

question.,,,

Mr. Adkar submitted that Form I not having been questioned for two decades, it was in the interest of justice that all relevant town planning",,,

proceedings be examined by the competent authority, to examine the alleged discrepancy between town planning records, and the city survey records,",,,

and for that purpose the matter would require consideration de novo at the appropriate level.,,,

Mr. Adkar submitted that the Town Planning Scheme has been drawn under Section 59 of the Regional and Town Planning Act, to give effect to",,,

the proposals in the final development plan. Mr. Adkar submitted that Section 68(3) of the Regional and Town Planning Act provides that the draft,,,

scheme should be available for inspection of the public. Section 71 of the said Act makes provisions for disputed claims and under Section 72(4), the",,,

Arbitrator while preparing preliminary scheme has to give notice to all concerned. There are provisions for ample opportunity to stakeholders to,,,

dispute entries in the scheme. Under Rule 13(3) every interested person is to be given notice. Mr. Adkar argued that in view of the aforesaid,,,

provisions and ample opportunity, no person could be heard to contend after 20 years that he had not been put to notice.",,,

Mr. Adkar submitted that it is settled law that if the statute prescribes a procedure, it is to be assumed that the procedure has been followed",,,

scrupulously, unless the contrary is shown. Further it is needless to say in the facts of this case, the Appellant has not been able to demonstrate that",,,

the authorities preparing Town Planning Scheme failed to follow the procedure mandated by the statute.,,,

Mr. Adkar submitted that the matter should be remanded to the Government for de novo adjudication to consider all relevant aspects of the,,,

matter. The Corporation respects and reveres the great personalities involved in the Appellant Trust, and for that reason the present litigation is not",,,

adversarial in nature, but in the interest of justice. Proper legal method should be followed before arriving at any conclusion one way or the other. Mr.",,,

Adkar’s arguments are untenable, since as recorded in the judgment and order under appeal, the facts pleaded by the Appellant are not in dispute.",,,

At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the name of Pune Municipal Corporation was incorporated without recourse to any procedure,,,

contemplated under the Regional and Town Planning Act. The Respondents have not produced any materials evincing compliance with the procedure,,,

prescribed under the Regional and Town Planning Act. The case made out by the Appellant cannot be rejected on the basis of assumption. Since the,,,

parties have been litigating for over a decade and a half we are not inclined to remit the matter back to the authority concerned for de novo hearing,,,

and decision.,,,

Mr. Adkar submitted that reliance was placed by the Appellant on the award for the first time before this Court, on the premise that there was no",,,

acquisition, and without acquisition or compensation, vesting of the suit land could not have been effected. Counsel argued that the vesting of property",,,

under the Town Planning Scheme was entirely different in nature than acquisition of property under Land Acquisition Act or under Section 127 of the,,,

Regional and Town Planning Act. In support of such submission, Mr. Adkar cited Pukhrajmal Sagarmal Lunkad (D) thru. His Legal heirs and Others",,,

v. Municipal Council, Jalgaon and Others (2017) 2 SCC 722.",,,

In Pukhrajmal Sagarmal Lunkad (supra), the issue was whether any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan",,,

under the Regional and Town Planning Act but not cleared by agreement within 10 years from the date on which the final regional plan or final,,,

development plan came into force, nor proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 commenced within such period and if a person interested",,,

has served notice on the Planning Authority/Developmental Authority/ Appropriate Authority as the case might be and the land is not cleared within,,,

six months of such notice; whether the allotment will be deemed to be released from reserve in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Regional,,,

and Town Planning Act. This Court held :-,,,

“11. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to look into the definitions of “development plan†and “town planning",,,

schemeâ€​. Section 2(9) of the MRTP Act defines the term “development planâ€​ and reads as under:,,,

“2. (9)“Development plan†means a plan for the development or re-development of the area within the jurisdiction of a Planning,,,

Authority and includes revision of a development plan and proposals of a Special Planning Authority for development of land within its,,,

jurisdiction.â€​,,,

The expression town planning scheme is not defined in the Act but under Section 2(30) the word “schemeâ€​ is defined as:,,,

“2. (30) “Schemeâ€​ includes a plan relating to a town planning scheme.â€​,,,

12.According toConcise Oxford English Dictionary “scheme†means a systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular,,,

object or putting a particular idea into effect. In the same dictionary, the term “planning†means planning and control of the",,,

construction, growth, and development of a town or other urban area. As such, we may say that the term “planning scheme†means, a",,,

systematic plan with an object of planning and control of the construction, growth and development of a town. We also think it relevant to",,,

mention here that development plans are dealt with under Chapter III, and town planning schemes are dealt with under Chapter V of the",,,

MRTP Act. Section 126 of the Act which is part of Chapter VII, deals with plans as well as schemes, but Section 127 does not refer to town",,,

planning schemes.,,,

Effect of final town planning scheme is provided in Section 88 of the MRTP Act which reads (as it existed before 2014), as under:",,,

“88. Effect of final scheme.â€"On and after the day on which a final scheme comes into forceâ€",,,

(a) all lands required by the Planning Authority shall, unless it is otherwise determined in such scheme, vest absolutely in the Planning",,,

Authority free from all encumbrances;,,,

(b) all rights in the original plots which have been reconstituted shall determine, and the reconstituted plots shall become subject to the",,,

rights settled by arbitrator;,,,

(c) the Planning Authority shall hand over possession of the final plots to the owners to whom they are allotted in the final scheme.â€​,,,

xxx xxx xxx,,,

In the present case the prayer is made by the appellants in the writ petitions specifically in respect of Town Planning Scheme III, which",,,

was finally sanctioned, as such, we find no error in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. From the",,,

copy of special notice dated 25-4-1980 in Form 4 issued under the Town Planning Scheme Rules (filed as Annexure B with the additional,,,

documents) and copy of order dated 16-5-1980 passed by the arbitrator in the aforesaid Rules, it is clear that the compensation was",,,

determined in respect of land in question under town planning scheme. The decision of the arbitrator appears to have been published in the,,,

Official Gazette dated 20-8-1980, and appeal was dismissed. In the circumstances, we find no error in the order passed by the High Court.",,,

The landowners further relied on Girnar Traders v.State of Maharashtra [Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555]",,,

to contend that the land is deemed to have been released after 6 months of the issue of notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The,,,

contention of the landowners cannot be accepted for the reason that the decision relied on by the landowners to contend that no steps were,,,

taken relates to the “development plan†for which the steps for acquisition had to be taken as per Section 126. In the present case,",,,

before the scheme is implemented, the procedure contemplated under Chapter V is followed to finalise the scheme. The procedure includes",,,

the sanctioning of draft scheme, appointment of arbitrator, issuing notices to persons affected by the scheme, determination of",,,

compensation by the arbitrator and then the final award made by the arbitrator. In respect of the land required under town planning,,,

scheme except the development plan, the steps under Section 126 may not require to be resorted to at all. It is clear from the record that the",,,

draft town planning scheme was published in 1976, arbitrator determined the compensation in 1980, the appeal filed before the Tribunal",,,

was dismissed in 1987 and the scheme was sent to the Government for sanction in 1988 and it was finally sanctioned in 1993 by following,,,

the procedure under Chapter V which is a self-contained code for the implementation of the town planning scheme.â€​,,,

In Pukhrajmal Sagarmal Lunkad (supra), compensation had been determined in respect of the land in question under the Town Planning Scheme",,,

and there was no challenge to the decision of the Arbitrator published in the Official Gazette. It was in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the,,,

High Court/Supreme Court refused to interfere.,,,

From the records of the case, particularly the order dated 20.8.1970 of sub division of plot number 473B and the award of the arbitrator, it is",,,

patently clear that the name of Pune Municipal Commissioner was at no point of time reflected as holder of the private road. There is no whisper as to,,,

how the road came to be shown as in possession of Pune Municipal Commissioner nor of the procedure adopted for effecting changes, if any, in the",,,

property records.,,,

On perusal of the documents, there can be no doubt at all that the road in question measuring 444.14 sqm. never belonged to the Pune Municipal",,,

Corporation. In the property records, there was no private road. There were three plots 473 B1, B2, B3 and 473B4 shown as vacant land held by the",,,

owners of all the three adjacent plots.,,,

The Municipal Corporation was never shown as owner of the vacant plot or of any private road. Even assuming that there was any policy decision,,,

to have an approach road to every plot, it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to acquire the land. On the other hand, the scheme clearly",,,

records that the same was based on entries in property records, and the award of the arbitrator.",,,

As argued by Mr. Sisodia, the Award dated 16th May, 1972 of the Arbitrator awarded under the Regional and Town Planning Act made it clear",,,

that the area and ownership of the plots were to be determined as per entries in the property registered. The Award is being final and binding under,,,

Section 74 on the Planning Authority as also the owners under Section 73 of the Regional and Town Planning Act. The sub-division in the Scheme,,,

under the Regional and Town Planning Act is as follows:,,,

S.No.,C.S. No.,Area (Sqmt.),Name of the Occupier

1.,1092 B/1,1025.00,Smt. Kanta Nanda

2.,1092 B/2,603.00,Sri Premal Malhotra

3.,1092 B/3,2838.00,"Shri Dilip Kumar Roy

Smt. Indira Devi

4.,1092 B/4,444.00 (Road),"Occupiers of Sr. Nos. 1

to 3 (Road)

been opined that under what circumstances a disputed question of fact can be gone into. In Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee,",,,

Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769], it has been held thus: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16)",,,

“14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and,,,

what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to",,,

dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in,,,

considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has,,,

jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on",,,

sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral",,,

evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the",,,

High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that",,,

the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party",,,

against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ,,,

jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.",,,

From the averments made in the petition filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large number of allegations the appellants,,,

relied upon documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the due publication,,,

of the notification under Section 4 by the Collector.,,,

In the present case, in our judgment, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it will not determine",,,

disputed question of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the present, in our",,,

judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both the parties the High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an",,,

affidavit-in reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate",,,

suit.â€​ (emphasis supplied),,,

In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 55, 3this Court referring to previous judgments of",,,

this Court including Gunwant Kaur (supra) held: -,,,

“19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the",,,

facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the",,,

above case of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC 769] this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral",,,

evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed",,,

questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition 2 even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves,,,

some disputed questions of fact.,,,

From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:",,,

a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable.",,,

b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases",,,

as a matter of rule;,,,

c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.â€​,,,

In the present case, it is not even in dispute that the private road in question did not at any point of time belong to the Pune Municipal Corporation.",,,

It is shown to be held by the holders by adjacent Plot Nos. 473 B1, 473 B2 and 473 B3.",,,

In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in the light of admissions, on the part of the respondent authorities that the private road",,,

measuring 414 sq. was private property never acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation or the State Government, the respondents had a public duty",,,

under Section 91 to appropriately modify the scheme and to show the private road as property of its legitimate owners, as per the property records in",,,

existence, and or in the award of the Arbitrator. In our considered opinion, the Bombay High Court erred in law in dismissing the Writ Petition with the",,,

observation that the land in question had vested under Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act.,,,

Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 provides:",,,

“88. Effect of [preliminary scheme].- On and after the day on which a [preliminary scheme] comes into force-,,,

(a) all lands required by the Planning Authority shall, unless it is otherwise determined in such scheme, vest absolutely in the Planning",,,

Authority free from all encumbrances;,,,

(b) all rights in the original plots which have been reconstituted shall determine, and the reconstituted plots shall become subject to the",,,

rights settled by Arbitrator;,,,

[(c) ***]â€​,,,

Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read with Section 125 to 129 relating to compulsory,,,

acquisition as also Section 59, 69 and 65.",,,

Section 125 provides as follows:,,,

“125. Compulsory acquisition of land needed for purposes of Regional Plan, Development plan or town planning scheme, etc.- Any land",,,

required, reserved or designated in a Regional plan, Development plan or town planning scheme for a public purpose or purposes",,,

including plans for any area of comprehensive development or for any new town shall be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose,,,

[within the meaning of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30",,,

of 2013)].,,,

[Provided that, the procedure specified in sections 4 to 15 (both inclusive) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land",,,

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) shall not be applicable in respect of such lands.]",,,

Section 126 stipulates the mode and manner of acquisition of land acquired to a designate in Regional, Development and Town scheme for a",,,

public purpose and the mode of payment of compensation.,,,

Section 127 provides that any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under the Regional and Town Planning",,,

Act, which is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final regional plan or final development plan comes into force, is to",,,

be deemed to have lapsed and the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. Of course by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 126,,,

inserted by Amendment by Maharashtra Act No.16 of 2009 on lapsing of reservation or a designation of any land under sub-section (1), the",,,

Government shall notify the same by an order published in the Official Gazette. Section 128 enables the Government to acquire lands for a purpose,,,

other than the one for which it is designated in any plan or scheme.,,,

In our considered opinion, the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition, misconstruing Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act,",,,

by reading the same in isolation from the other provisions of the Regional and Town Planning Act, particularly Sections 65, 66, 125 and 126 thereof.",,,

Section 125 read with Section 126 enables the state/Planning authority to acquire land. On a proper construction of Section 88, when land is",,,

acquired for the purposes of a Development Scheme, the same vests in the State free from encumbrances. No third party can claim any right of",,,

easement to the land, or claim any right as an occupier, licensee, tenant, lessee, mortgagee or under any sale agreement. On the other hand, Section",,,

65 referred to above read with Section 66 protects the interests of the owners.,,,

In the absence of any proceedings for acquisition or for purchase, no land belonging to the Appellant Trust could have vested in the State.",,,

The High Court also erred in its finding that the modification proposed involved substantial alteration by deletion of a public road and was,,,

therefore impermissible. The modification only involved deletion of the name of Pune Municipal Corporation as holder of the private road. The finding,,,

that deletion of a public road is a substantial alteration is, for the reasons already discussed above, completely baseless.",,,

The appeal is therefore allowed, and the Judgment and order under appeal is set aside.",,,

In exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties, we direct the Respondent",,,

authorities to act in terms of the Award dated 16th May, 1972 and delete the name of the Pune Municipal Corporation as owner of the private road in",,,

the records pertaining to the Scheme and carry out such other consequential alterations as may be necessary under Section 91 of the Regional and,,,

Town Planning Act. The appellant trust shall within a fortnight from the date of this order, give an undertaking to the Planning Authority not to",,,

obstruct access of adjacent plot owners through the private road in question. The necessary alteration or modification under Section 91, as directed",,,

above, shall be carried out within six weeks from the date of furnishing of the undertaking by the appellant, as directed above.",,,