TITLE : The State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Yogendra Mohan Sengupta and Anr
CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N. Jadhav
DATE : 6th January 2024
CITATION : Civil Appeal no 5348-5349 of 2019
FACTS
The Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 was enacted by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1977. In exercise of powers conferred upon the state by Section 87 of the TCP Act, enacted the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Rules, 1978. A development Plan was initiated by the state government for the period of 1979-2001. In the process, a survey was done with the green belt. The restricted area of the core land for development was called as the “green belt”. A case challenged the said development as the government was misusing the forest property without any prior permission from the forest. An expert committee was constituted to look into the matter and then the NGT banned all sorts of new construction in the area of green belt. Furthermore, it also gave instructions on how to install a development plan sustainably. The state challenged the banning and argued the legality of such a development plan.
LAWS INVOLVED
Section 13 of the TCP mentions the planning area. It states that the State government has the power to constitute a planning area via a notification. It also has the power to amalgamate, divide, alter or declare the planning area ceased to be called as such.
ISSUES
Whether the development plan by the State of Himachal Pradesh was in accordance with the law?
JUDGEMENT
The apex court held that the constitution of India restricts the court from ordering or directing the executive branch of the country in the matters of policy. It held that it’s the legislature’s job to do such act.
The court observed that the state has taken into consideration the suggestions given by the NGT in implementing the draft development plan. The court figured that the development plan would not affect the green belt area as no new construction would take place but rather a reconstruction. Further, construction would only be done in the areas where there is no green trees.
The court held that the development plan has taken due care of the environmental aspects but also stated that it doesn’t fully approve of the plan. If any person is aggrieved by any provision, they are welcome to challenge the same.
The court stated that the development plan has been finalized after taking the recommendation of various expert committees and studies. It states :
“In our view, the development plan, which has been finalized after taking recourse to the statutory provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire developmental activities to a standstill.”
For the matter pertaining to compensation for green belt land owners, the court held that the issue needs to be addressed as a specific issue and beyond the scope of the current proceeding.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran
