1
A.F.R.
Reserved
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36421 of 2009
****
Shri N.P. Singh
Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr.
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Shri N.P. Singh, in person
For the Respondents : Shri Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, Adv.
Hon'ble Ferdino I. Rebello, C.J.
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.
(Delivered by : Justice Ferdino I. Rebello, C.J.)
Rule. By consent heard forthwith, as the pleadings are complete.
2. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, resident of Noida, has
approached this Court by way of this petition and prayed that the petition
may be treated as a public interest litigation.
3. It is the petitioner’s case that the action of respondent no.2 in allowing
the private builders/individuals/corporates/private companies/limited
companies or their consortium to seek allotment of Group Housing Plots to
raise construction thereon and to sell to the general public at higher price for
their commercial gain, is contrary to the Scheme of the Act. The Authority
under the Act was constituted not to benefit the private builders to multiply
their income but to help the citizens to have their houses or flats at
affordable rates. The Authority was created under the provisions of the U.P.
Industrial Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the
2
‘Act’), which provides for constitution of an Authority for development of
certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township and for matters
connected therewith. The respondent No.1 enjoys eminent domain over the
land falling in the notified area of Noida and acquired the same for public
purpose by following the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. According to the petitioner, the respondents, in active connivance
with private builders, have allowed them to exploit the real estate market in
Noida by permitting the private builders to seek allotment of Group Housing
Plots for their commercial gain. The respondents, in order to help private
builders, are compromising/relaxing the building norms and development
norms as envisaged in the Master Plan of Noida – 2021 without any
authority and in contravention of Master Plan – 2021.
4. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the Scheme
known as ‘Scheme for Allotment of Group Housing Plots, Scheme Code GH
– 2009 (II)’, whereby the private builders have been permitted to bid for
large Group Housing Plots in Sectors 45, 121 and 137 by excluding others
from participating in the bid.
5. The Authority, in exercise of powers conferred by the Act, has made
Regulations for the purposes of proper planning and development of Noida,
known as the ‘New Okhla Industrial Development Area (Preparation and
Finalization of the Plan) Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Regulations 1991’), which was notified in the Gazette of U.P. on
08.06.1991. Consequent to promulgation of Regulations 1991, the Authority
was entrusted with the duty to prepare a plan and for that, the Authority
employed a Committee of the School of Planning and Architecture, New
3
Delhi to prepare the Master Plan of Noida – 2021, which has been prepared.
As per the development plan, according to the petitioner, the residential
sectors are to be developed in varying densities. There are various use zones
classified in seven categories, of which one is residential. The residential
zone has been classified into 4 use zones, which are:-
1. R1 – Low Density Residential upto 200 ppha.
2. R2 – Medium Density Residential above 200 upto 400
ppha.
3. R3 – High Density Residential above 400 ppha upto 600
ppha.
4. R4 – Special Development Area (SDA).
6. The petitioner has relied upon the report submitted by the Committee
of the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. The Authority
prepared the Master Plan – 2021 for Noida, which was approved by the
Board in its meeting held on 18.02.2006. On promulgation of the Master
Plan – 2021, the development has to be in accordance with the approved
plan.
According to the petitioner, he does not have the details by which the
private builders have been made eligible to seek allotment of Group Housing
Plots in Noida, but if such a decision is taken, the same is illegal, unfair, a
misuse and abuse of the powers of the respondents and the public office. It is
a colourable exercise and fraud upon the public whose lands were acquired
in the guise of the public purpose but allotted to the private builders for
commercial gain at the cost of general public who are waiting to have their
houses or flats in Noida. The Authority or the State Government, it is
4
averred, have no power to transfer the land acquired for public purpose to
the private builders to allow them to earn from the public fund. The
respondents with mala fide intention have misused their office and position
to allow the private builders to flourish at the cost of the public fund. The
report of the Authority at Agenda No.3 in one of its meeting, shows that
there are 17 Group Housing Plots for allotment in the development area. Out
of 17 plots, 8 were reserved for builders, 3 for societies, 2 for U.P.
Government officers Societies, 2 for industrial units/institutions and 2 for
senior citizens societies. The said report was presented before the Board for
approval and finalization of the policy of allotment, which was approved by
the Board in its 125th meeting held on 15.04.2005. As per Master Plan –
2021, the land use is residential, medium and high density. Apart from that,
it is averred that the Authority opened a scheme on 18.05.2006 for 13 Group
Housing Plots in Noida and invited tenders for allotment of plots in Sectors
93B, 110, 119, 121 and 134 to any firm, either proprietor or partnership,
company, either private or public limited/consortium of various categories.
As per Master Plan – 2021, in Sectors 93B and 121, the residential use zone
is high density and rest other sectors are medium density. The Authority, in
order to execute the development of the development area, has to function as
per the norms laid down in Master Plant 2021 and no power has been
conferred upon it to permit any violation of the same. The Authority has
allowed development contrary to the Master Plan 2021 and has
compromised with respect to land use or density to benefit the private
builders to earn maximum profit from the location as well as by allowing
excess F.A.R. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing the Scheme
5
for private builders being ‘Scheme for Allotment of Group Housing Plots,
Scheme Code GH – 2009 (II)’ and for a writ, order or direction in the nature
of prohibition to prohibit the Authority from allotment of Group Housing
Plots to private builders/individuals/corporate/private companies/limited
companies or their consortium for development and sale in the development
area.
7. The Authority – respondent no.2 has filed a counter affidavit as also
supplementary affidavits.
It is contended that there is no law including the Act, which prohibits
allotment of Group Housing Plots to builders. The development of the area
by way of construction of buildings can either be carried out by the
Authority on their own or by allotment of plots to builders, societies etc. as
per the terms and conditions of a particular Scheme. It is a matter of policy.
Allotment of Group Housing Plots to builders and/or societies is an accepted
form of allotment practised throughout the country. According to
respondent no.2, even in the past, for several years, Group Housing Plots
have been allotted to the societies and builders and it is not for the first time
that Group Housing Plots have been allotted to private builders.
8. Preliminary objections have also been raised on the ground that the
petition suffers from latches, as the Scheme was open from 4th June, 2009 to
25th June, 2009. The technical bids were opened on 25th June, 2009 and
thereafter the financial bids were opened on 29th June, 2009. Allotment
letters in respect of two plots and letter to change reservation in respect of
one plot have already been issued. There were altogether four plots, though
initially only three plots were advertised. By way of corrigendum published
6
th
on 20 June, 2009, the area of Plot No. GH – 001 located in Sector 121 was
reduced from 1,17,000 sq. metrs to 79285.35 sq. meters and by the same
corrigendum, Plot No. GH-01 of Sector 70 was added in the Scheme having
an area of 51000 sq. mtrs. Another corrigendum was issued on 23.06.2009
whereby the area of newly added Plot GH – 01 in Sector 70 was enhanced to
75800 sq. mtrs. The land use in Sectors 45, 121 and 70 is residential as per
the Master Plan- 2021. As regards Sector 137, the land use as per Master
Plan – 2021 was residential. But the Board on 10.06.2008 decided to change
the land use from residential to institutional, for which approval of the
Government was sought and the same was granted on 19.09.2008.
Subsequently, the Board, in its meeting held on 28.05.2009, decided to
restore the land use from institutional to residential. Approval of the
Government was sought by way of letter dated 03.07.2009 and in
anticipation of approval, the Scheme in question was launched which
included plot no.137. Thus, third party rights have come into existence
before filing of the writ petition and, thus, the petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties.
9. The petition, it is submitted, has been filed at the instance of a third
party, particulars whereof are not available with the second respondent. Also
some aspects and decision of the Authority taken in its 125 th and 137th Board
meetings were the subject matter of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 175 of
2009.
10. The respondents have denied that the density and the F.A.R. allowed
in respect of the plots in question are contrary to the approved Master Plan
or approved Scheme. The Scheme, as brought from time to time, have the
7
approval of the Competent Authority. The report of the School of Planning
and Architecture is a report of a Consultant, which is not binding on the
Authority. The Master Plan was prepared keeping in view the pollution
density of the entire township of a particular Sector. The density of any plot
within a Sector is determined not by the Master Plan but by the Noida
Building Regulations and Directions. The density of the township and Sector
is fixed by the Master Plan. Fixing of density or the F.A.R. is a dynamic
process. The parameters have to be revised keeping in view the ground
realities. The F.A.R. has been increased in accordance with law by an
amendment in the Building Regulations and Directions, which have been
duly notified in the gazette. The F.A.R. permitted by the respondents is less
than what is permitted by other Urban Development Authorities under the
control of the Government of U.P. In respect of Group Housing, the
permissible F.A.R. was increased from 150 to 250 by notification dated 25th
September, 2008. The averments, which are contrary to the stand taken by
the respondents have been denied and a supplementary counter affidavit was
filed on 18.08.2009 placing on record the various corrigendums, which were
issued and some clarifications. Two additional supplementary counter
affidavits have also been filed on 06.07.2010. In one supplementary
affidavit, the respondents have sought to explain the concept of density and
in other supplementary counter affidavit of the same date, some errors
noticed in the earlier supplementary counter affidavit have been corrected.
11. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of respondent no.2, learned
counsel sought to rely on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court
in Air Force Naval Housing Board, New Delhi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
8
& Ors., [2009 (9) ADJ 603 (DB)]. It is sought to be contended, based on the
said judgment, that the issue, especially regarding the Scheme for Group
Housing, which was approved at 125th meeting of the Board, was the subject
matter of the petition and has been answered by this Court.
We have perused the said judgment and we find that the main issue in
the said petition was the rejection of application of Air Force Naval Housing
Board for allotment of land in respect of the Group Housing Plots. The Air
Force Naval Housing Board was found not to be eligible under that Scheme.
They challenged the same and thereafter amended the petition to include the
consequential reliefs to consider their applications and also to quash Clause
– C of the Brochure of the Group Housing Scheme which was the subject
matter of the said writ petition, but which is not in issue in the present case.
In our opinion, therefore, the issues, which arise in this petition were not
directly in issue in the said petition. They have not been answered either and
were not required to be answered, considering the controversy in that
petition. In our opinion, therefore, the judgment in Air Force Naval Housing
Board, New Delhi (supra) would be of no assistance in deciding the
controversy, which arises in this petition.
12. The respondent no.2 has also raised the issue of latches. The petitioner
has approached this Court on 17.07.2009. It is true that the petitioner has not
challenged the Scheme before the date fixed for closure of receipt of tenders.
In this case, the technical bids were opened on 25 th June, 2009 and thereafter
financial bids were opened on 29th June, 2009 and it appears that out of four
plots, allotment letters in respect of two plots and reservation letter in
respect of one plot had already been issued.
9
This Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, no doubt,
considers whether a petition is barred by latches considering the fact that
third party rights may have been created in the meantime and if the petition
is entertained, the rights of said third party would be affected, which have
already been settled. In our opinion, considering the issue raised by the
petitioner, we are unable to accept the contention of respondent no.2 that the
petition should be dismissed on the ground of latches. That contention is,
therefore, liable to be rejected.
13. So far as the contention raised by the respondents that in the absence
of necessary or proper parties, i.e. the persons in whose favour two plots
have been allotted, and the petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary or
proper parties is concerned, the same will be considered at the time of
granting relief. The contention that grant of relief would affect the rights of
third party will also be considered while disposing of the present petition
considering the fact that there were four plots and allotments have been
made only in respect of two plots.
14. In view of the above, we may now consider the main issue, i.e.
considering the Scheme of the Act and the Regulations, whether it was open
to respondent no.2 to dispose of the land especially after it was acquired for
public purpose, to private builders which enabled them to make profits?
To answer the issue, we may gainfully quote Section 7 of the Act,
which reads as under:-
“7.Power to the Authority in respect of transfer of
land.–The Authority may sell, lease or otherwise transfer
whether by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or
10
building belonging to the Authority in the industrial
development area on such terms and conditions as it may,
subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, think fit
to impose.”
Apart from that, Section 6 of the Act is also relevant for the purpose,
which reads as under:-
“6. Functions of the Authority.–(1) The object of the
Authority shall be to secure the planned development of the
industrial development areas.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the objects of the
Authority, the Authority shall perform the following
functions–
(a) to acquire land in the industrial development
area, by agreement or through proceedings under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes
of this Act;
(b) to prepare a plan for the development of the
industrial development area;
(c) to demarcate and develop sites for industrial,
commercial and residential purposes according to
the plan;
(d) to provide infra-structure for industrial,
commercial and residential purposes;
(e) to provide amenities;
(f) to allocate and transfer either by way of sale or
lease or otherwise plots of land for industrial,
commercial or residential purposes;
(g) to regulate the erection of buildings and setting
up of industries; and
(h) to lay down the purpose for which a particular
site or plot of land shall be used, namely for
11
industrial or commercial or residential purpose or
any other specified purpose in such area.”
15. On consideration, therefore, of Sections 6 and 7, it is clear that power
is conferred on the Authority to sell, lease or otherwise transfer, by the
method set out in the Section, any land belonging to the Authority in the
development area on such terms as it thinks fit. The functions of the
Authority have been set out under Section 6 of the Act, which includes the
power to acquire land, to prepare a plan, to demarcate and develop sites for
industrial, commercial and residential purposes and to allocate them for sale
or lease, amongst others, for residential purposes. The power, therefore, to
alienate the land, which had been acquired for residential purpose has been
provided for by the Act itself. It will, therefore, not be possible to accept the
contention on behalf of the petitioner that the land having been acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be alienated. Section 7 of the
Act does not bar the Authority from selling or leasing the land to private
parties including private builders. There is also no other provision, implied
or express, prohibiting the transfer of land under the Act. The object of the
Act is not defeated if private builders are allowed to develop the area, as the
object is to develop the area into an industrial and urban township. The
process of development, as noted by the Authority in terms of plan notified,
can be carried out either by the Authority or through other bodies. The
Authority in that process transfers plots to individuals, societies as also for
Group Housing in respect of which development can be done by the private
parties, including builders whereby the object of the Act is satisfied. The
petitioner has not brought to our attention any provision whereby the
12
Authority is prohibited, expressly or impliedly, from carrying out objects of
the plan through private builders. The State and it organs in order to enable
citizens to have affordable housing and further for proper development of a
town, so that better infrastructure is provided, can do it by itself or through
its instrumentalities or third partner, including private builders. That private
builders may make profit is no answer. The State with its limited financial
resources can allow others to achieve the object of the Act which is its
primary concern including affordable housing and better infrastructure. The
first contention must be rejected.
16. The second contention is that the Scheme, which provides for
increased F.A.R. and higher density is contrary to the Act and the
Regulations. Under the Act, the Authority had initially framed the
Regulations, 1991, which was notified on 08.06.1991 and came into force
from the said date in view of the provisions of Regulation 1 (3) of the
Regulations 1991. Thereafter, the Authority has also notified the New Okhla
Industrial Development Area Building Regulations and Directions, 2006,
which was published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette on 16.12.2006 and have come
into force from the said date. Regulation 11 (1) of the Regulations 1991,
which gives power on the Authority to amend the Plan, reads as follows:-
“11. Amendment of the Plan.- (1) The Authority may
make such amendments in the Plan which do not effect
important alteration in the character of the Plan and which
do not relate to the extent of land use or standards of
population density.
… …. …. ….”
13
Under Regulation 4 (1) (b) (ii) of the Regulations 1991, the plan has
to show the various existing and proposed land uses indicating the most
desirable utilization of the land for residential use by allocating the area of
land for housing for different and defined densities and plotted development
for different categories of households. The Plan approved in terms of
Regulation 9 (c) of Regulations, 1991 shall be effective for a period
specified by the Authority, but such period shall not be less than five years.
Therefore, under the Regulations 1991, Master Plan-2021 has been prepared
and that Plan is in force. The Plan provides for various land uses. The Plan
can be amended in terms of Regulations. As long as the amendment does not
effect important alteration in the character of the Plan and does not relate to
the extent of land use or standards of population density, the Authority has
power to amend the Plan. In the Master Plan, the plots, which are the subject
matter of this petition, has been identified as belonging to high and medium
density. An amendment was made in the Development Area Building
Regulations and Directions, 2006, which was notified on 20th February 2009.
By the said amendment, amongst others, Directions 22 and 33.2 of the
Building Regulations and Directions 2006 have also been amended. By
virtue of the amendment in Direction 22, the F.A.R. for plots based upon
size, has been set out. By amendment to Direction 33.2, sub-regulation
provides density as mentioned in the Sector Layout Plan or Scheme shall be
applicable. In other words, the density can be as either provided in terms of
the Master Plant or the Scheme. The coverage area has been increased from
30% to 35% on plots size upto 40,000 sq. meters and F.A.R. from 2 to 2.75.
The permissible ground coverage area under the Housing Scheme, as
14
notified and which is the subject matter of challenge is 40% and maximum
permissible F.A.R. is 2.75, which is in terms of the Regulations and
Directions. The density, however, for plot area above 40,000 sq. meters has
been increased. This increase, in our opinion, is in conformity with Direction
33.2, which has conferred power on the Authority that the density can be in
terms of the Layout Plan or Scheme.
17. As we have noted that amended Building Regulations of 2006 permit
F.A.R. of 2.75. The Building Regulations are an exercise in subordinate
legislation. A challenge to a subordinate legislation can only be made on
limited grounds, which have been culled out as manifest arbitrariness, utra
vires or violation of fundamental rights. (For this purpose, see Bombay
Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group
& Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 434, wherein the law has been enunciated. See also
Janhit Manch & Bhagwanji Raiyani Vs. The State of Maharastra &
Ors., (2007) 1 BCR 329, where the challenges to an exercise in subordinate
legislation have been set out). We may gainfully reproduce the following
paragraphs from Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. & Co. Ltd. (supra):-
“104. A policy decision, as is well known, should not be
lightly interfered with but it is difficult to accept the
submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants that the courts
cannot exercise their power of judicial review at all. By
reason of any legislation, whether enacted by the
legislature or by way of subordinate legislation, the State
gives effect to its legislative policy. Such legislation,
however, must not be ultra vires the Constitution. A
subordinate legislation apart from being intra vires the
15
Constitution, should not also be ultra vires the parent Act
under which it has been made. A subordinate legislation,
it is trite, must be reasonable and in consonance with the
legislative policy as also give effect to the purport and
object of the Act and in good faith.
105. In P.J. Irani v. State of Madras, AIR 1961 SC 1731,
this Court has clearly held that a subordinate legislation
can be challenged not only on the ground that it is
contrary to the provisions of the Act or other statutes; but
also if it is violative of the legislative object. The
provisions of the subordinate legislation can also be
challenged if the reasons assigned therefor are not
germane or otherwise mala fide. The said decision has
been followed in a large number of cases by this Court.
[(See also Punjab Tin Supply Co. v. Central Govt., (1984
1 SCC 206)].
111. In BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, this Court while dealing with
new economic policies of the elected Government held :
(SCC pp. 381-82, paras 92-93)
“Any such change may result in adversely
affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality
is committed in the execution of the policy or the
same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision
bringing about change cannot per se be interfered
with by the court.”
115. Furthermore, interpretation of a town planning
statute which has an environmental aspect leading to
application of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
16
cannot be held to be within the exclusive domain of the
executive.
116. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever, that the
validity and/or interpretation of a legislation must be
resorted to within the parameters of judicial review, but it
is difficult to accept the contention that it is totally
excluded.
117. Unreasonableness is certainly a ground of striking
down a subordinate legislation. A presumption as to the
constitutionality of a statute is also to be raised but it does
not mean that the environmental factors can altogether be
omitted from consideration only because the executive has
construed the statute otherwise.
118. It is interesting to note that the scope of judicial
review is now being expanded in different jurisdictions.
Even judicial review on facts has been held to be
permissible in law. (See Manager, Reserve Bank of India
v. S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100, Sonepat Coop. Sugar Mills
Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 232, and Cholan
Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasmbandam, (2005) 3
SCC 241).
119. In Anil Kumar Jha v. Union of India, (2005) 3 SCC
150, it was held that in an appropriate case, the Supreme
Court may even interfere with a political decision
including an action of the Speaker or the Governor of the
State although it may amount to entering into a political
thicket. (See also Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of
India, (2006) 2 SCC 1.)
123. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that
in cases where constitutionality and/or interpretation of
17
any legislation, be it made by Parliament or an executive
authority by way of delegated legislation, is in question, it
would be idle to contend that a Court of superior
jurisdiction cannot exercise the power of judicial review.
A distinction must be made between an executive decision
laying down a policy and executive decision in exercise of
its legislation-making power. A legislation be it made by
Parliament/Legislature or by the executive must be
interpreted within the parameters of the well-known
principles enunciated by this Court. Whether a legislation
would be declared ultra vires or what would be the effect
and purport of a legislation upon interpretation thereof
will depend upon the legislation in question vis-a-vis the
constitutional provisions and other relevant factors. We
would have to bear some of the aforementioned principles
in mind while adverting to the rival contentions raised at
the Bar in regard to interpretation of DCR 58 as well as
constitutionality thereof.”
In our opinion, therefore, once the Authority was competent to make
and amend the Regulations and in the absence of any specific challenge to
the Regulations, that must be rejected.
18. That leaves us with the question of density. We have already noted
that the Regulation itself has provided that the density would be in terms and
as mentioned in Sector Layout Plan or Scheme. We have quoted the figures
insofar as the Scheme is concerned. In terms of the Regulations, therefore,
that density would be available to a person who carries out the development
in respect of plots, which have been transferred. Density has not been
defined under the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder. Density has,
18
however, been defined in the National Building Code published by the
B.I.S., Government of India to mean “The Residential Density expressed in
terms of the number of dwelling units per hectare.” The population density
in respect of Group Housing Plots have been fixed under Regulation 33 of
the Building Regulations, 2006 whereunder the density is as per the Sector
Plan or the Scheme. The Regulations of 2006, therefore, permit latitude to
the Authority to fix the density in respect of the Group Housing Plots. In
terms of Master Plan – 2021, the medium density has been placed in the
range of 200-400 pph while high density was placed in the range of 400-600
pph. According to the Authority, the density has to be reckoned at the town
level and consequently at the sector level. This density is relevant for the
purpose of laying down the infrastructure. In sectors, where the flatted and
plotted developments have already taken place, it would be difficult to take
steps for increasing the density. Increase in density of the plots under
development, can take place easily. For this, the requirement is that in these
sectors, it should be ensured that sufficient infrastructure is laid down to
sustain such density. These averments by the Authority, as set out in the
supplementary counter affidavit, have not been denied. Though, the density
of the Group Housing Plots in the Scheme is 1650, the overall density of
Sector Nos. 45, 121, 137 and 70 is well within the range laid down in the
Master Plan. The respondents have filed the details of residential area and
population as per the plots offered in the Scheme Code : GH 2009 (II), as set
out in the supplementary affidavit dated 06.07.2010. This was further
clarified as there were some calculating errors in respect of density of Sector
19
45 by filing a further affidavit of the same date. The density as calculated,
therefore, is within the range laid in the Master Plan.
19. The Authority has pointed out that the area of Noida city is
limited/fixed. If the town density is increased, then this can only be done by
increasing the availability of Group Housing Plots. If the space is limited,
the development can only take place vertically and not horizontally, which
has led to the concept of multi-storied flats. Once the vertical growth takes
place and the F.A.R. is increased, then the density is bound to increase
proportionately. Development of the city is a dynamic process where the
parameters of development/construction can change from time to time. With
the advent of flat system, it is possible to accommodate more dwelling units
in a given area than plotted development. This, in fact, results in decreasing
or arresting the cost per dwelling unit and, thus, contribute towards
affordable housing which, even according to the petitioner, is the object of
the Act. This is a part of policy as reflected in the Regulations. Policy, more
so a socio-economic policy, should normally be not interfered by the Court
and must be left in the executive domain. The government has to be allowed
some room at the joints. Considering these aspects, and as there is no
specific challenge by the petitioners to D.C. Regulation 33 (2), in our
opinion, this challenge as raised by the petitioner has to fail.
20. In the light of the above, we find no merit in this petition.
Consequently, rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
Date : July 29, 2010
AHA
(A.P. Sahi, J.) (Ferdino I. Rebello, C.J.)
20
Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.
Rule discharged.
For orders, see order of date passed on separate
sheets.
Date : July 29, 2010
AHA
(F.I. Rebello, C.J.)
(A.P. Sahi, J.)