Urban Development - The Legal Chamber

“Nothing Short of Harassment”: Supreme Court Allows Man to Rebuild Old House, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Fine on SDMC

19Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

“Nothing Short of Harassment”: Supreme Court Allows Man to Rebuild Old House, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Fine on SDMC

The Supreme Court upheld that municipal bylaws and the Master Plan permitting mixed land use are enabling, not compulsory. Property owners cannot be forced to convert residential use to commercial use. A deemed sanction for purely residential reconstruction plans is valid if the applicant chooses not to avail the option for commercial activity. Facts Of The Case: The respondents, owners of an 85-year-old dilapidated residential house in Delhi, applied for sanction to demolish and reconstruct it in 2010. The Municipal Corporation failed to decide, leading the owners to obtain a deemed sanction from the Appellate Tribunal under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The Corporation challenged this order successively before the Additional District Judge, the Delhi High Court (via writ and rev...

Commercial vs. Residential Use: Supreme Court Decides on Delhi Market Plot Dispute

17Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Commercial vs. Residential Use: Supreme Court Decides on Delhi Market Plot Dispute

In a significant order, the Supreme Court clarified the legal framework governing the use of upper floors in designated Local Shopping Centres (LSCs) in Delhi. The Court held that while the ground floor is permitted for commercial use, utilizing upper floors for commercial purposes requires payment of conversion charges and regularization of any unauthorized construction as per the Master Plan for Delhi-2021 and relevant building bylaws. Facts Of The Case: This case concerns an application for the de-sealing of a commercial premise at Plot No. 106 in New Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi. The applicant, M.C. Mehta, filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) in the long-standing Public Interest Litigation (W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985) concerning unauthorized constructions and land misu...

Public Trust Doctrine Extended: Supreme Court Says Man-Made Lakes Must Also Be Protected for Public Good

29Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Public Trust Doctrine Extended: Supreme Court Says Man-Made Lakes Must Also Be Protected for Public Good

The Supreme Court ruled that a man-made lake constructed for irrigation is not a statutory "wetland" under the 2017 Rules, exempting it from a complete ban on permanent construction. However, the Court applied the Public Trust Doctrine, extending its protection to such artificial water bodies and prohibiting permanent structures to ensure ecological balance and public use. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Swacch Association, an environmental organization, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court challenging various construction and recreational projects in and around the Futala Lake in Nagpur. The association argued that the lake was a protected 'wetland,' and that the construction of a Viewer's Gallery on its bank, the installation of a Musical Fountain and an ar...

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice

The Supreme Court affirmed the landowner's preferential right to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. It held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must issue a specific notice inviting the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme before any acquisition under Section 14 can be initiated. The 2018 Amendment to the Act did not dilute this mandatory requirement, and acquisition proceedings commenced without such notice were declared illegal. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a plot of land in Bandra, Mumbai, owned by the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (Church Trust). A portion of this land had been encroached by hutments since the 1930s and was declared a slum area in 1978. The slum dwellers formed the Shri Kadeshwari Cooperative Housing Soci...

Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property

This Supreme Court judgement affirms that landowners possess a preferential right to redevelop their property declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The Court held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must formally invite the landowner to submit a rehabilitation scheme. The power of the State to acquire the land under Section 14 of the Act is subject to this preferential right and cannot be exercised before this right is legally extinguished. Facts Of The Case: The case concerned a land dispute in Mumbai, where Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) was the owner of a plot that had been encroached upon by slum dwellers. A portion of the land was declared a slum area in 1979, and later, in 2011, the entire plot was declared a Slum Reh...

Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings

The Supreme Court upheld the 2025 EIA Notification, ruling that General Conditions under the 2006 Notification never applied to building and township projects. It affirmed that State-level expert bodies (SEIAA) are competent to appraise such projects. However, the exemption for industrial and educational constructions was struck down as arbitrary. Facts Of The Case: The writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of the notification dated 29th January 2025 and an Office Memorandum dated 30th January 2025, both issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The petitioner, an environmental organization, argued that the new notification fundamentally diluted the environmental regulatory regime established by the original 2006 EIA Notification. The ...