State can't get away with illegality: Supreme Court

New Delhi, May 27: The Supreme Court has held that courts cannot close eyes to the blatant illegalities committed by the state or the statutory authorities concerned while trying to check haphazard and unplanned growth of a city and to promote its planned development.

A bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandey Katju, while dismissing the appeal of Chairman of Indore Vikas Pradhikaran against the judgment of Madhya Pardesh High Court dated March 6, 2007, also ruled, ''Although right to property of an individual is not a fundamental right, it is a constitutional and human right.

The courts must make an endeavour to strike a balance between the public interest on the one hand and protection of a constitutional right to hold property on the other.'' Pieces of land of over hundred villages were proposed to be acquired by the authorities for the construction of a 70-foot-wide bypass road and the road was to be constructed by the local authorities as development by private builders would lead to haphazard development.

This would completely destroy the purpose of planned development of the residential area for which the land was to be reserved.

The town development scheme envisaged construction of 10,000 houses for low income groups whereas three major roads having width of 75 metres, 60 metres and 36 metres were to be built along with supporting infrastructure, such as basic amenities.

Counsel for the respondent M/s Pure Industrial Cock and Chemical Ltd and others contended that since the land of the respondents was outside the planning area as notified by the state of Madhya Pradesh constituting the appellant authority, the purported town development scheme would not be applicable in relation thereto.

The pieces of land of the respondents are located in villages Bicholi and Kanadia within the respective jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayats constituted under the provisions of Madhya Pardesh Gram Panchayat Act.

The apex court concluded by observing, ''Where, however a scheme comes into force although it may cause hardship to the individual owners as they may be prevented from making the most profitable use of their rights over property, having regard to the drastic consequences envisaged thereunder, the statute should be considered in such a manner as a result whereof greater hardship is not caused to the citizens than actually contemplated thereby.

Whereas an attempt should be made to prevent unplanned and haphazard development but the same would not mean that the court would close its eyes to the blatant illegalities committed by the state or the statutory authorities in implementation thereof.

Implementation of such land development as also building laws should be in consonance with public welfare and convenience.

In the United States of America Zoning ordinances are enacted pursuant to the police power delegated by the state. Although in India the source of such power is not police power but if zoning classification imposes unreasonable restrictions, it can not be sustained.

The public authority may have general considerations, safety or general welfare in mind, but the same would become irrelevant as thereby statutory rights of a party cannot be taken away and courts must make an endeavour to strike a balance between public interest on the one hand and protection of a constitutional right to hold property on the other.''

UNI