{"id":267249,"date":"1996-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996"},"modified":"2015-03-07T00:27:48","modified_gmt":"2015-03-06T18:57:48","slug":"m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1977, JT 1996 (5)\t372<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM.C. MEHTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 1977\t\t  JT 1996 (5)\t372\n 1996 SCALE  (4)422\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     The Master\t Plan for  Delhi  –  perspective  2001\t(the
\nMaster Plan)  as approved  by the  Central Government  under
\nSection IIA(2)\tof the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (the Act)
\nwas published in the Gazette of India on August 1, 1990. The
\nMaster\tPlan   specifically  provides  that  the  hazardous\/
\nnoxious\/heavy\/large industries\tare not permitted to operate
\nin the\tcity of\t Delhi and  the\t existing  industrial  units
\nfalling in these categories are to be shifted\/relocated. One
\nof the\tquestions for  consideration in\t this  interlocutory
\napplication  is\t how  and  in  what  manner  the  land\tmade
\nAvailable as  a result\tof the\tshifting\/relocating of these
\nindustries is  permitted to  by used by the owners\/occuriers
\nof the said land.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t on November  24, 1995\tpassed the following
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
     “The industries to be relocated are
\n     to be  assisted in\t every\tpossible
\n     manner. The question of utilisation
\n     of the  land available  as a result
\n     of shifting of these industries has
\n     also  to\tbe  examined.\tIt   is,
\n     therefore,\t  necessary    to   have
\n     interaction      with\t various
\n     Departments\/Governments.\tWe   are
\n     informed  that  primary  assistance
\n     has  to   come  from  the\tNational
\n     Capital Region  Planning Board.  We
\n     direct the\t Member Secretary of the
\n     Board to  be present  in this Court
\n     on 30th  November, 1995  at 2 PM to
\n     assist  us\t  in  this   matter.  We
\n     further direct  the  Urban\t Affairs
\n     Ministry, DDA, NCT-Delhi and MCD to
\n     depute a  responsible officer  each
\n     to be present in this Court on 30th
\n     November, 1995 at 2 PM.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Pursuant to the order quoted above, Mr. Omesh Saigal, Member
\nSecretary,  National  Capital  Region  Planning\t Board\t(the
\nBoard) and  Mr. K.J. Alphons, Commissioner, Land management,
\nDelhi Development  Authority (DDA)  personally assisted this
\nCourt on November 30, 1995. The assistance rendered by these
\nofficers was noticed in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
     “Mr.   Sehgal   states   that   the
\n     Planning Committee of the Board has
\n     already  –\t framed\t a  scheme  (the
\n     scheme) regarding the re-use of the
\n     land which\t is likely  to\tbe  made
\n     available\tas   a\tresult\t of  the
\n     shifting  of  the\tindustries  from
\n     Delhi. The\t scheme\t is  at\t present
\n     with the  DDA for consideration. We
\n     have  requested   Mr.   Sehgal   to
\n     prepare a short note of what he has
\n     stated before us and place the same
\n     on the  record for\t our assistance.
\n     He may  do so  within 2  days  from
\n     today.  On\t  behalf  of   the  DDA,
\n     Mr.K.J.Alphonse, Commissioner  Land
\n     Management is  present.  He  states
\n     that the  Scheme sent  by the Board
\n     is at  present under  consideration
\n     of the  DDA. He further states that
\n     after the\tScheme is  finalised  it
\n     would be  sent to Urban Development
\n     Ministry, Government  of India  for
\n     finalization.  We\t have  requested
\n     Mr.Alphonse  to  place  the  Scheme
\n     before  this  Court  along\t with  a
\n     note. He may do so within 2 days.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On December  13, 1995  this Court\tpassed the following
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
     “Pursuant to this Court order dated
\n     November 30,  1995\t Mr  K.J.Alphons
\n     has placed\t on record  the proposed
\n     scheme  regarding\t utilisation  of
\n     land which\t would be  available  in
\n     the event\tof  re-location\t of  the
\n     hazardous\/noxious\/large\t   scale
\n     industries from  Delhi. The  scheme
\n     has  been\tdiscussed  with\t learned
\n     counsel   appearing   for\t various
\n     industries. We are of the view that
\n     it\t would\t be   useful   for   the
\n     representatives of\t the  industries
\n     to\t  have\t discussion   with   the
\n     Committee\twhich\tis  to\t finally
\n     examine the  proposed scheme. Mr. P
\n     C\tJain,  Additional  Commissioner,
\n     DDA who is present in the Court has
\n     explained to  us various aspects of
\n     the scheme.  He is agreeable to the
\n     proposal that  5\/10 representatives
\n     of the  Industries\t may  place  the
\n     suggestions\/objections    of    the
\n     industries to  the proposed  scheme
\n     before    the     Committee.    The
\n     representatives of\t the  industries
\n     may the  their written  suggestions
\n     before Mr.\t Jain  within  one  week
\n     from  today  Thereafter,  Mr.  Jain
\n     will inform  them\tabout  the  date
\n     when the  Committee  is  likely  to
\n     meet. It  would be\t desirable  that
\n     the Committee  meets before the end
\n     of\t this  wear.  In  any  case  the
\n     meeting must take place before 10th
\n     January,  1996  because  all  these
\n     matters have  been listed for final
\n     nearing on\t that date. In any case,
\n     Mr.   Jain\t   will\t   inform    the
\n     representatives about  the date  of
\n     the meeting  before 25th  December,
\n     1995.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr. K.J.  Alphons was  the chairman  of the committee in the
\nDDA which  examined the\t question regarding  utilisation  of
\nland made  available as\t a result  of relocation\/shifting of
\nthe  industries.   The\tproposal  of  Alphons-Committee\t was
\napproved by  the technical  committee of the DDA on November
\n21, 1995.  The operative  part of  the said  proposal is  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“SL. EXTENT    Percentage to be\t Percentage of\t  Percentage
\n NO.\t\tearmarked for Re- land to be\t   to be ear
\n\t       creation Ground\t used for\t  marked and
\n\t       playground or any providing\t  to be
\n\t       other open uses as Housing\t  developed
\n\t       specified by the\t  facilities\t  for resi-
\n\t       Authority\t  by the owner\t  dential or
\n\t\t\t\t  at norms to\t  commercial
\n\t\t\t\t  be determined\t  -user to
\n\t\t\t\t  by DDA\/GNCT\t  be develo-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  Delhi.\t  ped by the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  owner.\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
\t  1\t    2\t      3\t\t4\t  5\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
\t  1.   Upto 2000      -\t\t-    100t to be\n\t       Sq.mtr.\t\t\t     developed\n\t       (including the\t\t     by the\n\t       first 2000 Sq.\t\t     owner in\n\t       mts. of the\t\t     accordance\n\t       larger plot)\t\t     with the\n\t\t\t\t\t     zoning\n\t\t\t\t\t     regulations\n\t\t\t\t\t     of the\n\t\t\t\t\t     Master\n\t\t\t\t\t     Plan.\n\t  2.   0.2 to 5 ha.   33\t27   40\n\t  3.   5 ha. to 10 ha.33\t34   33\n\t  4.   Over 10 ha.    33\t37   30\"\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————
\nThe  Alphons-Committee\talmost\tagreed\twith  the  reuse  of
\nvacated land as suggested by the Board.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. V.K.  Bugga, Town  Planner,  Municipal\t Corporation
\nDelhi (MCD),  by way  of a  note placed on record, suggested
\nthat “considering  the increasing  level of pollution in the
\ncity, the  most vibrant\t need of  the community\t today is  a
\nbreath of  fresh air which is only possible if more and more
\ngreen spaces  within  the  city\t could\tbe  created  besides
\npreserving existing  ones.” According  to Mr.  Bugga  “green
\nopen areas  upto an  extent of\t50 to  60 per cent or a less
\nintensive land\tuse are\t the probable answer to the question
\nof the\tutilisation of the land made available on account of
\nshifting of industries under reference.”\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to  this Court’s order dated December 13, 1995
\n(quoted\t above)\t  several   industrial\t units\/organisations
\nsubmitted their objections\/suggestions before Mr. P.C. Jain,
\nAdditional   Commissioner   (Planning)\t DDA.\tThe   units\/
\norganisations were  also heard\tby  a  sub-group  under\t the
\nchairmanship  of   Mr.\tJain.  The  operative  part  of\t the
\naffidavit dated\t January 10,  1996, filed  by Mr.P.C.Jain in
\nthis respect, is as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “Based\t       on\t     the
\n     observations\/suggestions  made   by
\n     all\t the\t      industrial
\n     units\/organisations,\t Special
\n     Technical Committee  in its meeting
\n     held on 8.1.1996 modified\/clarified
\n     its earlier  decision of 21.11.1995
\n     as under:\t(Item No.95\/95\tTC. File
\n     No.F.20(16)\/93\/MP under the subject
\n     regarding utilisation  of\tland  of
\n     existing  hazardous   and\t noxious
\n     units\/large scale industry on their
\n     closure\/shifting).\n<\/p>\n
     (a) The  policy would be applicable
\n     only to  the hazardous\/ noxious (as
\n     classified in  Annexure H\t(a)  and
\n     heavy  and\t  large\t  industry   (as
\n     classified in  Annexure H(b) in the
\n     MPD 2001.\n<\/p>\n
     (b) The  percentage breakup  of the
\n     area is to remain unchanged between
\n     the  open\tarea,  housing\tfacility
\n     i.e.   facilities\t  required   for
\n     housing,\t commercial\/residential.\n<\/p>\n
     The tern  ‘Housing Facility’ in the
\n     decision of the Technical Committee
\n     refers   to    Community\tFacility
\n     required for  the population and as
\n     detailed out  on page  150\t of  the
\n     Gazette (MPD 2001).\n<\/p>\n
     (c)  The  shifting\t industry  shall
\n     also be  permitted to redevelop the
\n     land for light and service industry
\n     as per the provisions of MPD 2001.\n<\/p>\n
     (d) The  ownership of  the\t pockets
\n     under  open   space  and  community
\n     facility would also remain with the
\n     shifting\t industry    who    will
\n     develop\/maintain these two.\n<\/p>\n
     (e) The  shifting industry would be
\n     given the\tbenefit of  FAR\t on  the
\n     entire plot  of land, thus, vacated
\n     for   utilisation\t  as   per   the
\n     specified land  uses in  MPD  2001.\n<\/p>\n
     This   is\t  generally   with   the
\n     understanding that\t the permissible
\n     FAR would\tbe  60\tas  in\tcase  of
\n     extensive industrial  use zone.  No
\n     construction of any nature shall be
\n     permitted on the area identified as
\n     open spaces tc be left as mandatory
\n     green area.  A nanum  of 104 of the
\n     total floor  space shall have to be
\n     used for community facility.\n<\/p>\n
     (f) For  necessary modifications in
\n     the text of MPD 2001, these pockets
\n     would  be\t designated  as\t SPECIAL
\n     AREAS   with    the   controls   as
\n     specified in the scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
This Court on January 24, 1996 passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
     “While we\tare  hearing,  Mr.  D  N
\n     Goburdhan,\t    learned\t counsel
\n     appearing for  the NCT,  Government
\n     (Department  of  Land  &  Building)
\n     states that  the Lt. Governor Delhi
\n     has constituted  a committee headed
\n     by Mr.  D R  Khanna,  judge,  Delhi
\n     High Court (retired) to consider as
\n     to how  and in what manner the land
\n     eventually\t  made\t  available   by
\n     relocation of  the industries is to
\n     be utilised.  Needless to\tsay that
\n     we are  hearing the  matter for the
\n     last about\t 6  months  and\t we  are
\n     almost at\tthe  final  stages.  We,
\n     however,  welcome\t any  assistance
\n     from any  quarters. We  direct  the
\n     Registry to  send the  draft scheme
\n     placed  by\t Mr.  Alphonse\tand  the
\n     suggestions made by Mr. P C Jain to
\n     Justice D\tR Khanna through Mr. D N
\n     Goburdhan,\t adv.  within  two  days
\n     from today. Justice Khanna may have
\n     deliberations  with  his  committee
\n     and\t    place\t     his
\n     suggestions\/recommendations  before
\n     this   Court    within   10    days
\n     thereafter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Justice D.R. Khanna (retired) Chairperson, Land Use Advisory
\nCommittee appointed by the National Capital Territory, Delhi
\nAdministration submitted a note pursuant to the above quoted
\norder of  this Court. It is stated in the note that the time
\navailable with\tthe Committee  was short  and  as  such\t the
\ndeliberations of  the  Committee  could\t not  be  finalised.
\nKeeping in  view the  urgency of  The matter, Justice Khanna
\nstates, the note contains an ex-facie view which he gathered
\nfrom various deliberations of the Committee. Regarding heavy
\nand large  industries  Justice\tKhanna\tstated\tthat  “these
\nindustries have\t to be\tshifted under the master Plan. Their
\nnumber is  not large  but the  lands occupied  by  them\t are
\nsubstantial. One  such occupies about 184 acres, another 112
\nacres, still  another 37  acres and so on”. Paras 15, 16, 18
\nto 21 & 29 of Justice Khanna’s report are as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “15. The  land prices in Delhi have
\n     phenomenally   sky-rocketted.    In
\n     fact,  their  values  may\tbe  many
\n     times more\t than the  yields  which
\n     are presently  being enjoyed by the
\n     operation of  these industries  and
\n     even what\tthey might  have totally
\n     enjoyed from  the time of the start
\n     of\t   these     industries.     The
\n     protestations  of\t the  industries
\n     that  they\t  are  going  to  suffer
\n     because of\t the shifting may appear
\n     misplaced and  may be  more to draw
\n     as much of compensatory relief from
\n     the government  as may be possible.
\n     Left to their choice, most of these
\n     industries would  themselves  shift
\n     and then  develop\/dispose off their
\n     sites and\tstructures, as\tthere is
\n     least  doubt  that\t they  see  gold
\n     mines in them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     16. At  the same  time, it\t must be
\n     acknowledged here\tthat none should
\n     grudge in the high profits that the
\n     owners  are   likely  to\tget   by
\n     development\/sale\tof    sites   of
\n     factories.\t They  have  been  their
\n     owners and\t did play  needed  roles
\n     during  relevant\ttimes\tin   the
\n     industrialisation of NCT. Any spurt
\n     in the prices of real estate enures
\n     for their\tbenefits. The  same  can
\n     only be  circumscribed as\tthe need
\n     may   dictate    of    social    or
\n     environmental  good  and  uplifting
\n     the face of capital city.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.  :   am  informed   that   some
\n     hearings  were   provided\tto   the
\n     representatives of\t the  industries
\n     before   formulation    of\t   these
\n     schemes, and  then the  percentages
\n     in column\t3 to  5 on  the user  of
\n     land were\tarrived at.  I\thave  no
\n     occasion\tto   fully   grasp   the
\n     justification of  these percentages
\n     but treating  them as  they are,  I
\n     proceed to make my comments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     19. Firstly,  so far as percentages
\n     mentioned in column 5 of categories
\n     2,\t  3   &\t  4   industries,   some
\n     grievances is  made in  the written
\n     representations received by me that
\n     they are  too low.\t Be that  as  it
\n     may,  still   the\tpercentages   of
\n     column 5 would leave very big areas
\n     of\t lands\t with  these  industries
\n     which would  still\t be  gold  mines
\n     with  them.   A  three   bed  rooms
\n     residential  flat\tin  Delhi  would
\n     fetch anything  between  20  to  50
\n     lacs, and\tin commercial area, much
\n     smaller would fetch much more.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20. It  must be  essentially  taken
\n     note of that those industries which
\n     are located  in residential  areas,
\n     the  development  may  have  to  be
\n     residential  in  nature.  Similarly
\n     lands located  in commercial  areas
\n     should   receive\tdevelopment   of
\n     commercial nature. Lands located in
\n     industrial\t areas\t should\t  retain
\n     their  user.   This  would\t  ensure
\n     development in  accordance with the
\n     zoning regulations\t of  the  Master
\n     Plan.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     21. The first category of the draft
\n     scheme concerns land up to 2000 sq.
\n     mts. Their 100% development is left
\n     to the  owners in\taccordance  with
\n     the Master\t Plan. More  than 95% of
\n     the industries  in Delhi would fall
\n     in this  category and would thus be
\n     substantially benefited.  There  is
\n     almost a unanimity on this.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     29. Adverting  to the FAR, normally
\n     it has  to be confined to the areas
\n     that are  being  built  up\t on  and
\n     developed. There  should  therefore
\n     be no  reason why\tit should not be
\n     confined to  FAR of  the  lands  in
\n     col. 5 only. To extend that for the
\n     benefit of\t col.5 so  as to include
\n     areas of col. 3 and 4 would deprive
\n     areas of  col. 3 & 4 of the FAR for
\n     all time  to come and would thus be
\n     greatly   determinantal   to   them
\n     (especially when  col. 4  has to be
\n     independently  built  upon),  while
\n     giving overwhelming benefit to Col.
\n     5 lands.  It has to be kept in view
\n     here that\t2000 sq.  mts. of larger
\n     plots have\t still been reserved for
\n     col. 5  while dealing with category
\n     1 industries.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Justice Khanna submitted a supplementary note dated February
\n26, 1996. On March 27, 1996 we heard learned counsel for the
\nparties. We  also examined  and discussed  Alphons Committee
\nreport, Jain  Committee report\tand the\t two notes placed on
\nrecord by  Justice Khanna.  We\twere  informed\tthat  Khanna
\nCommittee was  to submit its final report by April 10, 1996.
\nWe, therefore,\tadjourned the  hearing of  the case to April
\n12,  1996.   The  matter   was,\t however,   taken   up\t for
\nconsideration on April 30, 1996. We finally heard the matter
\non that day and passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
     “Mr.  P.V.\t  Jai  Krishnan,   Chief
\n     Secretary, NCT  Delhi has\tfiled an
\n     affidavit dated  April 29, 1996. We
\n     have heard\t learned counsel  on the
\n     question of  land-use, which may be
\n     made  available   as  a  result  of
\n     relocation\/shifting     of\t     the
\n     industries\t from\tDelhi.\tWe  have
\n     before   us   Alphone’s   Committee
\n     Report. We\t have also before us the
\n     Report submitted  by Jain Committee
\n     in\t  this\t respect.   The\t  Khanna
\n     Committee\t  appointed    by    NCT
\n     Government Delhi  has  not\t as  yet
\n     completed its  work. We  have  been
\n     adjourning hearing of these matters
\n     10 from  time to  time to await the
\n     Khanna  Committee\tReport.\t In  the
\n     affidavit it is stated by the Chief
\n     Secretary that the tenure of Khanna
\n     Committee has expired. It is stated
\n     that the  NCT Delhi  Administration
\n     is taking steps to renew the tenure
\n     of\t the   Committee   for\t further
\n     period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  We are  of the  view\tthat  no
\n     useful purpose  will be  served  to
\n     look for  any  assistance\tin  this
\n     respect   from    the   NCT   Delhi
\n     Administration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  We  have   finally  heard  the
\n     matter today.  Needless to say that
\n     the Master\t Plan is the Charter for
\n     this purpose  and we  have\t to  lay
\n     down the  land-use keeping\t in view
\n     the provisions  of the Master Plan.
\n     In this  view  of\tthe  matter,  we
\n     direct the NCT Delhi Administration
\n     not to proceed with this matter any
\n     further. It shall not constitute or
\n     extend the tenure of any committee.
\n     We shall  finally decide  the issue
\n     and  the  said  decision  shall  be
\n     binding on all concerned.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We have given our thoughtful consideration to the point
\nat issue  before us.  We have  had elaborate discussion with
\nthe learned  counsel representing  various industries  which
\nare to be relocated\/shifted. The basic charter for the land-
\nuse in\tthe city of Delhi is the Master Plan. The provisions
\nof the\tMaster Plan  are statutory and binding. The relevant
\nprovisions\tregarding      hazardous\/noxious\/heavy\/large
\nindustries under the Master Plan are as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “HAZARDOUS AND  NOXIOUS  INDUSTRIES
\n     Refer Annexure III H(a).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     a)\t The   hazardous   and\t noxious
\n     industrial units  are not permitted
\n     in Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     b) The existing industrial units of
\n     this  type\t  shall\t be  shifted  on
\n     priority  within\ta  maximum  time
\n     period  of\t  three\t years.\t Project
\n     report to effectuate shifting shall
\n     be prepared  by the concerned units
\n     and  submitted   to  the  Authority
\n     within  a\tmaximum\t period\t of  one
\n     year.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     c)\t The  land  which  would  become
\n     available on account of shifting as
\n     administered in (b) above, would be
\n     used for  making up the deficiency,
\n     as per  the needs of the community;
\n     based  on\tnorms  given  in  Master
\n     Plan; if  any land or part of land,
\n     so vacated\t is not\t needed for  the
\n     deficiency\t  of\tthe    community
\n     services, it  will be  used as  per
\n     prescribed land  use;  however  the
\n     land shall\t be used  for light  and
\n     service  industries,  even\t if  the
\n     land use  according to  the  master
\n     Plan\/Zonal\t Development   Plan   is
\n     extensive industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     d)……………….
\n     HEAVY AND LARGE INDUSTRIES
\n     Refer Annexure III H(b)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     a)\t  No   new   heavy   and   large
\n     industrial units shall be permitted
\n     in Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     b) The  existing  heavy  and  large
\n     scale industrial  units shall shift
\n     to Delhi  Metropolitan Area and the
\n     National Capital  Region keeping in
\n     view the  National\t Capital  Region
\n     plan and National Industrial Policy
\n     of the Govt. of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     c)\t The  land  which  would  become
\n     available on account of shifting as
\n     administered in (b) above, would be
\n     used for  making up the deficiency,
\n     as per  the needs of the community;
\n     based on  norms given in the Master
\n     Plan; if  any land\t or part of land
\n     so vacated\t is not\t needed for  the
\n     deficiency\t  of\tthe    community
\n     services, it  will be  used as  per
\n     prescribed land  use;  however  the
\n     land shall\t be used  for light  and
\n     service  industries,  even\t if  the
\n     land use  according to  the  Master
\n     Plan\/Zonal\t Development   Plan   is
\n     extensive industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     d)……………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     i)……………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii)……………..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tthus  obvious  that  the  land\twhich  would  become
\navailable  on\taccount\t of   shifting\/relocation   of\t the
\nindustries can only be used for making up the deficiency, as
\nper the\t needs of the community, based on the norms given in
\nthe Master Plan. If any land or part of the land, so vacated
\nis not\tneeded for  community services it can be used as per
\nthe prescribed\tland use. To appreciate the concept “need of
\nthe community”\tunder the  Master Plan it would be useful to
\nhave a look at the following provisions of the Master Plan:\n<\/p>\n
     “In general  it would  be desirable
\n     to\t take\tup  all\t  the\texisting
\n     developed residential  areas one by
\n     one for  environmental improvements
\n     through\t(i)    plantation    and
\n     landscaping   (ii)\t  provision   of
\n     infrastructure-physical and  social
\n     and  proper  access  where\t lacking\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) possibility of infrastructure
\n     management of the last tier through
\n     the local residents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Conservation\t\t     and
\n     revitalisation is\trequired in case
\n     of\t   traditional\t   areas     and
\n     environmental    upgradation    and
\n     improvement is  needed in other old
\n     build-up areas.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  LUNG SPACES
\n\t  The Master  Plan for\tDelhi in
\n     1962  had\tindicated  9101\t ha.  of
\n     recreational  area\t at  the  Master
\n     Plan level,  Within this  area  the
\n     city has  18 major\t district  parks
\n     from different  periods of\t history
\n     i.e. Roshanara  and Qudsia\t gardens
\n     of Mughal\tperiod. Talkatora garden
\n     of British period and Budha Jayanti
\n     park of  post independence era. Out
\n     of this  area 6012\t ha. of district
\n     park and  regional park area is now
\n     available.\t       During\t     the
\n     implementation    of    the    plan
\n     approximately   34\t   percent    of
\n     recreational area\thas been last to
\n     other uses.  On the  basis\t of  the
\n     land use  surveys conducted in 1981
\n     about  2710   ha.\t of   additional
\n     recreational  area\t at  the  Master
\n     Plan level\t has been  earmarked  in
\n     the land use plan in the DUA-81 and
\n     the urban\textension  indicated  in
\n     the plan.\tThus in\t the urban areas
\n     shown in  the  land  use  plan  the
\n     total recreational\t area  indicated
\n     is 8722  ha. for  a  population  of
\n     about 9  million by 2001 @ 9.7 sqm.
\n     per person.  Part of  this area  is
\n     required to be developed for sports
\n     activities as per policy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Further     conversion      of
\n     recreational areas\t to  other  uses
\n     should  be\t  permitted  only  under
\n     extraordinary circumstances.  Areas
\n     in lieu  of such  conversion may be
\n     provided  elsewhere   in  order  to
\n     maintain the  over all  average for
\n     the city.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Within DUA-81,  the  following
\n     special\tactivity     area    for
\n     recreation\t  are\t proposed    for
\n     development.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  Additional   special\tchildren
\n     parks of 4 ha. each (of the type of
\n     India Gate children park) 7 nos.
\n\t  Location of  Special\tChildren
\n     Park  in\tDUA-81\tto   be\t in  the
\n     district  parks   of  Dhaula  Kuan,
\n     Pitam Pura,  Keshopur,  Sanjay  Van
\n     Trilok  Puri,  Gulabi  Bagh,  Feroz
\n     Shah Kotla and Coronation Memorial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) Children traffic training parks
\n     of 5 ha. each, 6 nos.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Location of  children\t Traffic
\n     Training Park  in DUA-81  to be  in
\n     the district parks at Punjabi Bagh,
\n     Baba  Kharak  Singh  Marg,\t Pragati
\n     Maidan,  Dilshad  Garden,\tWazirpur
\n     and Loni Road.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) Picnic huts 5 nos.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  About 30% of the district park
\n     areas should  be developed\t as wood
\n     lands, where  picnic hut could also
\n     be located.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Location  of\tPicnic\tHuts  in
\n     DUA-81 to\tbe in the district parks
\n     at\t  Paschimpuri,\t  Pitam\t   Pura,
\n     Bidiwala\t Bagh,\t  Kalkaji    and
\n     Mehrauli.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Preferred species of the trees
\n     to be  planted in\tparks,\tgardens,
\n     wood lands\t and  roadside\tetc.  to
\n     suit local\t conditions are given in
\n     Annexure II.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In   the    Urban    Extension
\n     wherever  possible\t  Water\t  bodies
\n     (lakes) should  be developed to act
\n     as major lung spaces and to attract
\n     migratory birds  and for  improving
\n     the   micro-climate.    A\t special
\n     recreational area on the pattern of
\n     Disneyland\/amusement park\tcould be
\n     developed\tin   the  land\tbecoming
\n     available for the channelisation of
\n     river Yamuna.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The  district\t  parks\t in  the
\n     Urban Extension  would be\t@ 9  sqm
\n     per person which would also include
\n     special parks given as under:
\n     Special Children Park    4 Nos.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\t\t\t      (4ha. each\n     Children Traffic\n     Training Parks\t      4 Nos.\n\t\t\t     (3ha. each)\n     Picnic Huts\t      4 nos.\n\t  In   new    developments   the\n<\/pre>\n
     neighbourhood park\t of at least 1.5
\n     ha. for 15,000 population should be
\n     planned with  flowering  trees  and
\n     shrubs so\tas to  achieve colourful
\n     pleasant environment throughout the
\n     15 year.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Delhi is  one of the most polluted cities in the world.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The quality  of ambient\t air is\t so hazardous  that lung and
\nrespiratory diseases  are on  the  increase.  The  city\t has
\nbecome a vast and unmanageable conglomeration of commercial,
\nindustrial, unauthorised colonies, resettlement colonies and
\nunplanned housing.  There is  total lack  of open spaces and
\ngreen areas.  Once a  beautiful city  Delhi now\t presents  a
\nchaotic picture.  The most  vital  “community  need”  as  at
\npresent is  the conservation of the environment and reversal
\nof the\tenvironmental degradation.  There are  virtually  no
\n“lung spaces”  in the  city. The  Master Plan indicates that
\n“approximately 34  percent of  recreational areas  have been
\nlost to\t other uses”.  We are  aware that  the housing,\t the
\nsports activity\t and the recreational areas are also part of
\nthe “community\tneed” but  the most important community-need
\nwhich is  wholly deficient and needed urgently is to provide
\nfor the\t “lung spaces”\tin the city of Delhi in the shape of
\ngreenbelts and\topen spaces.  We are, therefore, of the view
\nthat totality of the land which is surrendered and dedicated
\nto the\tcommunity by  the owners\/occupiers of the relocated\/
\nshifted industries  should be  used for\t the development  of
\ngreenbelts and open spaces.\n<\/p>\n
     The core  question for  consideration, however,  is how
\nmuch of\t the total  land which\twould become  available from
\neach of\t the industrialists  is to  be\ttaken  away  by\t the
\ncommunity for  its use\tand how\t much is  to be\t left in the
\nhands of  the industrialists  for  the\tcommunity  use.\t The
\nsuggestions given  by Alphons Committee in this respect have
\nbeen noted by us in the earlier part of the order. Mr. Omesh
\nSehgal, Mr.  P.C. Jain and Justice Khanna by and large agree
\nwith the suggestions of the Alphons Committee. We are of the
\nview that  no useful  purpose would be served by maintaining
\ntwo categories\tas suggested  by Alphons  Committee in Col.3
\nand 4. After leaving the part of the land with the owner for
\ndeveloping the same in accordance with the permissible land-
\nuse under  the Master  Plan the\t remaining  land  should  be
\nsurrendered to\tthe Delhi  Development Authority  (DDA)\t for
\ndeveloping the\tsame to\t meet the  community needs. When the
\nMaster Plan  permits the  use of  the land  only to meet the
\ncommunity-needs, it  obviously means that the land has to be
\nsurrendered and\t dedicated to  the community.  While meeting
\nthe  community\tneeds  it  is  necessary  to  make  suitable
\nprovision for  the owner  to enable him to meet the expenses
\nof relocating\/shifting the industry. It would, therefore, be
\nin conformity  with the\t broader concept of “community need”
\nunder the  Master Plan,\t to permit the owner to develop part
\nof the\tland for his own benefit and surrender the remaining
\nland to the use of the community at large.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore,  order and\tdirect that  the land  which
\nwould become  available on account of shifting\/relocation of
\nhazardous\/noxious\/heavy and  large industries  from the city
\nof Delhi shall be used in the following manner:
\n“SL. EXTENT\t    Percentage to be\tPercentage to be
\n NO.\t\t    surrender and\tdeveloped by the
\n\t\t    dedicated to the\towner for his
\n\t\t    DDA for develop-\town benefit in
\n\t\t    ment of greenbelts\taccordance with the
\n\t\t    and other spaces\tuser permitted under
\n\t\t\t\t\tthe Master Plan\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
\t  1\t\t 2\t\t3\t       4\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
\t  1.\t    Upto 200&\t\t–\t  100% to be
\n\t\t    Sq.mtr.\t\t\t  developed
\n\t\t    (including the\t\t  by the
\n\t\t    first 2000 Sq.\t\t  owner in
\n\t\t    mts. of the\t\t\t  accordance
\n\t\t    larger plot)\t\t  with the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  zoning
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t regulations
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  of the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  Master
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  Plan.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  2.\t    0.2 to 5 ha.\t57\t  43\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  3.\t    5 ha. to 10 ha.\t65\t  35\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  4.\t    Over 10 ha.\t\t68\t  32″\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
     We do  not agree  with  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nindustrialists that  Floor Area\t Ratio (FAR) be permitted to
\nthem on\t the total area of the plot. We however, direct that
\non the\tpercentage of  land as\tshown in Col.4 the owners at
\nserial No.2,3  and 4  shall be entitled to one and half time
\nof the permissible FAR under the Master Plan.\n<\/p>\n
     The DDA has suggested that it may be necessary to amend
\nthe Master Plan for regularising the land use as directed by
\nus. We do not agree with the suggestion. The totality of the
\nland made  available as\t a result of the relocation\/shifting
\nof the industries is to be used for the community needs. The
\nland surrendered  by the  owner\t has  to  be  used  for\t the
\ndevelopment of greenbelt and open spaces. The land left with
\nthe owner  is to  be developed\tin accordance  with the user
\npermitted  under   the\tMaster\t Plan.\tIn  either  way\t the
\ndevelopment is\tto meet\t the community\tneeds  which  is  in
\nconformity with the provisions of the Master Plan.\n<\/p>\n
     We are, therefore, of the view that it is not necessary
\nto amend the Master Plan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1977, JT 1996 (5) 372 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/05\/1996 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) VENKATASWAMI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267249","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-06T18:57:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-06T18:57:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":4334,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996\",\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-06T18:57:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-06T18:57:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-06T18:57:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996"},"wordCount":4334,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996","name":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-06T18:57:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-10-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267249","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267249"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267249\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}