CHET RAM VASHIST Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
LAWS(SC)-1994-10-48
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on October 26,1994

PT.CHET RAM VASHIST Appellant
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SASIKALA VS. AMMASI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
SABHA SRINIVAASAN @ S. KANAGA SABAPATHY VS. DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [LAWS(MAD)-2021-4-181] [REFERRED TO]
PORANKI SRIDHAR RAJU VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2013-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHIYA VIGNANA MANDIRAM VS. VEDDI SANKARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2017-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
PERALA JYOTSNA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2020-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR SHARAD BORAWAKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BHIMASHANKAR SIDRAMAPPA CHIPPA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-5-46] [REFERRED TO]
SRI MALAY KUMAR MUNSHI AND ANR VS. THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1999-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
SIDCO NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP BY ITS SECRETARY VS. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVANI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED R APPALO EDUCATIONAL TRUST R VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND APPALO EDUCATIONAL TRUST R BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2006-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
MR. PUNJABRAO SRIHARI WADJE VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AURANGABAD [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-220] [REFERRED TO]
M R GOPALAKRISHNAN VS. SPECIAL OFFICER COPORATION TRICHY [LAWS(MAD)-1995-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
HIG FLAT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2000-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI NAGAR RESIDENCES WELFARE ASSOCIATION A REGISTERED SOCIETY REGD NO 198/98 Ï¿½ VS. SUBBATHA [LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-275] [REFERRED TO]
R VARADARAJAN VS. DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-109] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-2001-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
ADINATH STHANKVASI JAIN VS. NALANDA CO-OPERATIVE HOSG. SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2019-9-124] [REFERRED TO]
SADASHIV MADHAV SHELKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-2-203] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2006-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
S R NAGAR MAKKAL NALA SANGAM VS. TIRUPPUR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-148] [REFERRED TO]
TEJ PRATAP SINGH VS. N D M C [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-477] [RELIED ON]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR VS. ANIL SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2002-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
FRIENDS OF RAJOURI GARDEN ENVIRONMENT VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
JUPITER AUTOMOBILES VS. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-173] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTARAM NARAYAN RAUT VS. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR [LAWS(BOM)-2012-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAVIKANT LAKSHMINARAYAN ZANWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-7-169] [REFERRED TO]
USHA RANI ALIAS MEENAKSHI VS. COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF VELLORE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-46] [REFERRED TO]
M K STALIN VS. SECRETARY OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPT FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN GARG AND ORS. VS. SHAMSHER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL GUPTA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2005-7-87] [REFERRED TO]
SYED JAHANGIR VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
R TAMILARASI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-319] [REFERRED TO]
KARUR DISTRICT, VENGAMEDU, KONGU NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. DIRECTORATE OF TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-257] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA HEMANT SALUNKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHALISGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-129] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GWALIOR VS. ANIL SHARMA & ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2002-3-128] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. GAUTAM NAGAR HOUSING SOCIETY [LAWS(MPH)-2003-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN VS. PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK AND CHEM LTD [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-194] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANRAO JAGOBAJI GOWANDE PUBLIC TRUST VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
DOWN MANGOR VALLEY RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. MORMUGAO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2002-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
ANSAL AND SAIGAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. L AND D O [LAWS(DLH)-1998-5-15] [REFERRED]
BHAGWANRAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-227] [REFERRED TO]
TEJ PRATAP SINGH VS. NDMC [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-161] [REFERRED TO]
M.KRISHNASAMY VS. MEMBER SECRETARY OF CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
VILLUPURAM MUNICIPALITY VS. M SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2002-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER VS. VASANTHAKUMARI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-963] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. PAWAN GARG & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-127] [REFERRED TO]
SARITA GUPTA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANASAMY NAGAR RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. COMMISSIONER TIRUPUR MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-265] [REFERRED TO]
BAGYAM VS. COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-194] [REFERRED TO]
K RAJAMANI VS. ALAMUNAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-256] [REFERRED TO]
GRAND VASANT RESIDENTS WEL. ASS VS. DDA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
ST JOSEPH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY KURNOOL VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND VIHAR OWNERS ASSOCIATION REGD. & ANR. VS. THE COMMISSIONER, MCD & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-664] [REFERRED TO]
Nagangouda Patil VS. Deputy Commissioner, Town Planning Authority rep by its Assistant Director and The Secretary Gram Panchayath [LAWS(KAR)-2013-12-162] [REFERRED TO]
NALANDA CO-OPERATIVE HOSG SOCIETY LTD VS. RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPN & 2 ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-442] [REFERRED]
GIRISHBHAI NAGJIBHAI SAVALIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-131] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. PRASHANT NARULA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
G. USHA RANI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
SIRIPURAPU NARASIMHA RAO VS. CHILLA KANAKA RAJU [LAWS(APH)-2010-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL VS. MCD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-278] [REFERRED TO]
CHANNAVAJALA VIJAYA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
JUPITER AUTOMOBILES VS. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-171] [REFERRED TO]
THULUKKANAMMAL VS. THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-219] [REFERRED TO]
P V SANTHOSH KUMAR VS. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT MATHAGIRI KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
R JEYASUDHA VS. NEELAMEGAM NAGAR AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-330] [REFERRED]
P. RAVICHANDRAN AND ORS. VS. THE PRESIDENT, C. KOTHANGUDI PANCHAYAT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-439] [REFERRED TO]
M S RANGARAJAN VS. PAMMAL MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-273] [REFERRED TO]
SRI GURU SINGH SABHA VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI VS. MEERA S.V. KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-301] [REFERRED TO]
G PANDI VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-399] [REFERRED TO]
CHIDAMBAR VS. MAZBULAHMAD [LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-374] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI NAGAR COLONY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VS. HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-136] [REFERRED TO]
KUMPATLA APPA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN VARMA VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KODAIKANAL [LAWS(MAD)-1998-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
REAL ESTATE AGENCIES VS. GOVT. OF GOA [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS DIVISIONAL RAILWAY STAFF CO OP BUILDING SOCIETY LTD BY ITS PRESIDENT VS. CORPORATION OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1999-8-130] [REFERRED TO]
ADAYAR VENKATARATHNAM NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
M. RAJESWARI VS. IDHAYATHULLAH [LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
D.B. REALTY LIMITED AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
R CHANDRAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-4] [FOLLOWED ON]
Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others VS. State of Karnataka and others [LAWS(KAR)-1998-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
ADYAR VENKATARATNAM NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. PANNAI PARAMASIVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2000-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. VS. S. RAJASEKARAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-266] [REFERRED TO]
N. RAMAN VS. THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-435] [REFERRED TO]
R KRISHNAMURTHY VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-624] [REFERRED TO]
ALAMUNAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-372] [REFERRED TO]
K DURAIRAJ VS. SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU TOWN ADMINISTRATIVE AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-230] [REFERRED TO]
V.JEEVANANDAM VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2021-6-235] [REFERRED TO]
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. VS. FLORITA BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY DEEPCHAND CHORDIYA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-357] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHA W/O MADHUKAR PARLEWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-11] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.)The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (herinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') in absence of any provision in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was entitled to sanction the plan for building activities with condition that the open space for parks and schools be transferred to the Corporation free of cost.
(2.)Facts inbrief are that one Pt. Amin Chand was owner of a colony named 'Ganga Ram Vatika situated on Najafgarh Road, Village Chaukhandi, near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. In 1957 he submitted a layout plan of the colony to the Delhi Development Provisional Authority. It was rejected. The Town Planning Organisation of the Corporation sent him a copy of the revised lay out plan and intimated him that if he submitted the plan as proposed by them they might consider his request, Amin Chand therefore, submitted fresh proposal in accordance with proposed lay out plan in September 1958. In the plan it was proposed to divide the colony into 98 residential plots and 7 shops plots. Some open space was reserved for children park. The plan was approved by the Corporation. It passed a resolution in December 1958 approving the plan. In the plan the water supply to the colony was proposed to be supplied by tube well as an interim arrangement till the municipal supply of water reached the colony. It was proposed to install tube wells in the two plots measuring 100 x 80 ft. These two plots Nos. 1and 2 were set apart for this purpose. Later on since municipal water supply main reached Tilak Nagar there was no necessity of installing any tube well for the supply of water to the colony. Amin Chand, therefore, decided to connect his colony with the municipal water main. After providing services to the colony he applied to the Corporation for removing restrictions from building activities in the colony. He wanted to sell the plots. Permission was also sought from the Corporation for his purchasers to build. In course of these preparations the original plan had to be changed at places. Therefore, an adjustment plan was submitted showing the latest position of the plots and the roads etc. Amin Chand died in June 1962.After his death his son wrote to the Corporation for removal of restrictions. On November 20, 1963 the Town Planner of the Corporation informed the appellant that the area of the two plots originally earmarked for tubewell will have to be used as an open park. The Standing Committee of the Corporation met in November 1964 for consideration of the appellant's application for removing restriction on building activities. They passed the following resolutions:
"Resolved that building activity in those parts of Ganga Ram Vatika be allowed were the services have already been completed subject to the condition that the open spaces for parks and schools be transferred to the Corporation free of cost."
On coming to know of this in November 1965 the appellant filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the court of the subordinate Judge. The main grievance was against the condition in respect to transfer of the open space for parks and schools. The Trial Court held that the condition relating to reservation of the two plots for the purpose of an open park was valid. But the condition relating to transfer of the sites reserved for schools and parks to the Corporation free of cost was invalid. Both parties went in to appeal. The appeal of the Corporation was dismissed. The Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court to the extent it dismissed the suit of the appellant in respect of the declaration and injunction reliefs with respect to the condition calling upon him to leave as green park the area shown as two residential plots in the revised lay out plans but held that the appellant had no cause of action and the trial court should have rejected the plaint as the Standing Committee which was the final authority to accord permission for building activities having rejected the paln there was no cause of action for the appellant to challenge the condition. The appeal even though allowed in part resulted in rejection of plaint. Against this order passed by the Appellate Court, it was the Corporation which filed two appeals. One, against the dismissal by the Appellate Court of the appeal filed by it assailing the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the Corporation had no right to ask the plaintiff to transfer to it sites for parks and schools free of cost. The other appeal was against the observation in favour of the appellant that he was entitled to relief of declaration and injunction. This appeal was dismissed by the High Court as incompetent. As regards the other appeal the High Court held that the resolution of the Committee did not amount to transfer of ownership to it. It was only a transfer of right of management. The Court, therefore, held that after the plans were sanctioned on the basis of the voluntary restrictions placed by the appellant himself on his ownership rights a fiduciary relationship in the nature of trust came into existence by operation of law in respect of those plots and appellant's right of owenership stood modified. The Court repelled the claim of the appellant that he would himself manage the park and the school as the appellant having ceased to be full and complete owner of the space set apart for parks and schools he held them only as a trustee. It was held that a fiduciary relationship in the nature of trust having arisen and the coloniser having ceased to have beneficial interest in the land which was earmarked by him for public purpose the beneficial enjoyment of the land after the senction vested in third party. Therefore, the only residuary interest that the appellant held in these lands was to hold it for the benefit of other persons. Consequently the transfer of the residuary interest which was nothing more than a right to hold these lands in trust for the specific purpose specified by the coloniser in the sanctioned lay out plan, it was only a right of management of the trust in respect of these lands to which Article 31 was not attracted. Reliance was placed by the High Court on a decision in M/s. D.L.F. Housing and Construction (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, ILR (1969) Delhi 1055.
(3.)But that decision is of no avail as it was on construction of clause (iv) of paragraph (3) of Section 5 of the regulations framed under Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Ordinance, 1955 which provided that the coloniser shall transfer to the authority free of cost the plots reserved for public utility services. Whether such a provision was valid or not, or it was violative of Article 31 of the Constitution is not of any consequence as it is undisputed that there is no provision in the Act which provides for either vesting of the parks or schools or any place left by coloniser in the lay out plan for this purpose. In absence of any statutory provision vesting such land in the Corporation it cannot become the owner of it. And that is not the reasoning of the High Court as well.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.