1

                                                  REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  937 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 32089 of 2016]

Nagpur Improvement Trust & Ors.        .. Appellants

Versus

M/s Bombaywala & Ors.      ….  Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  938  OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.33160 of 2016]

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  939  OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.33004 of 2016]

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  940  OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.33226 of 2016]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 941  OF 2019              [Arising out of SLP (C) No.34176 of 2016]

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  942  OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.38036 of 2016]

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 943­944  OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.9652­9653 of 2017]

2

TRANSFERRED CASE ©NO. 23 OF 2018

J U D G M E N T

M.R.SHAH, J.    

Leave granted in all these Special Leave Petitions.

1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group

of appeals arising out of the impugned judgment and order

dated 15.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Bombay,

Bench at Nagpur passed in Writ Petition No.2695 of 2015, all

these appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment and order.   For the sake of convenience, Civil

Appeal arising out of the SLP© No.32089 of 2016 is treated

as lead matter and the facts in the said appeal are narrated.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the Division

Bench of the  High Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay,  Nagpur

3

Bench, Nagpur passed in W.P.No.2695 of 2015 by which the

Division Bench has allowed the said Writ Petition preferred by

the respondents Nos.1 to 18 herein­original petitioners Nos.1

to 18   some of the occupants/tenants of the building in

question and by which the Division Bench has set aside the

notice dated 24.04.2015 issued by the Nagpur Improvement

Trust, the original respondents­Nagpur Improvement Trust

and others have preferred the present appeals.

3.         The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are

as under.

4. That the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act 1936

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIT Act’) was enacted on

25.12.1936.  That the Nagpur Improvement Trust (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘NIT’) vide Board Resolution dated

29.10.1960 framed an improvement Scheme known as

“Abhyankar Road Widening and Buty Mahal Street Scheme”

(hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) in respect of 8.7 acres

of land bearing Khasra No.320 and 315 (part) Mouza

Sitabuldi, belonging to the Buty Family.   That the same

Scheme came to be framed under Section 31 of NIT Act for

4

“creating new or improving the existing means of

communications and facilities for traffic”.   That,  inter alia, a

new 15 metres wide road was to be constructed to join

Mahatma Gandhi Road to Abhyankar Road.  That the internal

road of 15 metres provided in the said Scheme is the subject

matter of issue in the present matters.  That, the said Scheme

came to be published on 29.10.1961 as per Section 39 of the

NIT Act.   That, the NIT sought approval of the State

Government of the above Scheme.  That the State Government

sanctioned the said Scheme in exercise of powers under

Section  44(1) read  with  Section  45(1)(a) of the  NIT  Act on

23.09.1964.  Accordingly, a Notification to that effect was also

issued under Section 45 of the NIT Act.

4.1 That, thereafter, the Maharashtra Regional Town

Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “MRTP Act”)

came into effect on 11.01.1967.    At this stage, it is required

to be noted that, as per the MRTP Act, any Development Plan

made  under the  said  Act  had to take  precedence  over  any

Scheme to the contrary.   The same shall be discussed

hereinbelow.

5

4.2 That NIT was appointed as the “Planning Authority”

under the MRTP Act for Nagpur.   That, in the year 1967, the

First  Final  Development  Plan  for the  City  of  Nagpur  under

Sections 22 and 31 of the MRTP Act was prepared and

sanctioned.  At this stage, it is required to be noted that, in the

said final Development Plan, the above 15 metres road which

was provided under the Town Planning Scheme under the NIT

Act was not shown in the Development Plan under the MRTP

Act.   

4.3 That the NIT, in Board meeting dated 05.06.1981 and

31.12.1981, decided to implement the Scheme.   That, a

Special Land Acquisition Officer came to be appointed by the

State Government for acquisition of the land and the

proceedings of the land acquisition came to be initiated.

4.4   That a newspaper article was published on 21.06.1981

stating that the NIT has decided to handover the “Buty Mahal

Development Scheme” to the land owners for redevelopment.

That, in the year 1983, a Writ Petition being WP.No.2326 of

1983 was filed by the land owners before the Nagpur Bench of

6

the Bombay High Court challenging the acquisition.  Initially,

the  High  Court granted  an interim  stay  on the  acquisition

proceedings.

4.5 That, on 07.06.1984, the land owners – Shri Yogeshwar

Buty  and Smt.  Madhuribai  Buty  approached NIT to  allot  a

reconstituted plot or plots bearing Nos.6, 7 and 8 belonging to

them.   However, the said request came to be rejected by the

NIT on 17.08.1984.

4.6 That, on 13.03.1995, one Smt. Indirabai Buty (land

owner) submitted an application for permission to develop the

land stating inter alia, that; (1) Development of the land would

be as per the Development Plan of the NIT; (2) All the tenants

would be accommodated in the proposed Scheme; (3) The

betterment charges would be paid to the NIT.  That, the Board

of NIT in its meeting held on 11.03.1996 passed a Resolution

wherein it  was,  inter alia,  decided ……………..(1) A plot was

allocated  in the matter of  Shri Yadhuraj Sanghani; (2) Smt.

Indirabai  Buty and  others land  owners to accommodate in

their proposed Scheme, the tenants in the area of the

reconstituted plot and  (3) All the petitions  in respect of the

7

subject plot would have to be withdrawn unconditionally.  On

the basis of the said Resolution of the NIT dated 11.03.1996,

Writ Petition No.2326 of 1983 challenging the acquisition was

withdrawn by the land owners.

4.7 In the  meantime, in the year 1989, the First Final

Development Plan which was earlier prepared and sanctioned

in the year 1986, came to be revised.   Again, the above 15

metres internal road was not depicted in the revised DP.  

4.8  It appears that, in the year 1997, NIT addressed letters

to the Urban Development Department requesting the latter to

obtain permission from the Government to relax Rule 5(2) of

the NIT (Land Disposal) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as

the “1983 Rules”) under Rule 26 of the 1983 Rules, to allocate

the reconstituted plot in the present Scheme.   That the State

Government vide order dated 07.10.1997 issued under Rule

26 of the 1983 Rules relaxed Rule 5(2) and allotted the

reconstituted plot in Survey Nos.3117, 3119, 3123, 3127,

3120, 3122, 3124 and 3125 in Khasra No.320 Mouza

Sitabuldi, subject to certain conditions including inter alia that

…………(i) The Applicants would accept the compensation of

8

the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and give

possession of the lands to him; (ii)   Development of the land

would as per the Development Plan of NIT; (iii)  All the tenants

are to be accommodated in the Scheme and (iv) That in the

interest of tenants the NIT fixed the plot allotment rate @ 50%

of the market value, without prejudice to Rule 7(3) of the 1983

Rules.   

4.9 That the NIT passed a Board Resolution on 23.10.1997 to

implement the altered Scheme in terms of G.O. dated

07.10.1997.   That  the Special  Land Acquisition Officer,  NIT

passed an  Award dated 16.12.1997 in respect of the land

admeasuring 5677 sq.ft bearing Khasra No.320 Sitabuldi,

Nagpur.   That, pursuant to the Award declared by the Land

Acquisition Officer, possession of the land was taken by the

Land Acquisition Officer and handed over to NIT.   It appears

that, out of 271552.60 sq.ft of the land, only 114079.36 sq.ft

was acquired by NIT and the rest of the lands remained with

the land owners.

9

4.10 That the Final Development Plan in terms of Section 31

of the MRTP came to sanctioned in the year 2001.

4.11 That pursuant to the G.O. dated 07.10.1997, the

process of widening of the Abhyankar road was initiated and

notices were  issued for demolition of  shops.  At  that stage,

Writ Petition No.798 of 2002 was filed by some of the

Abhyankar  Road tenants  challenging the  demolition  notices

issued by the NIT to the tenants in the process of road

widening.  The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the

High Court  by  judgment  and order  dated 22.02.2002.  The

matter  was carried before this  Court.  Before this  Court,  a

compromise was reached between the petitioners of

W.P.No.798 of 2002 and land owners and NIT.  By order dated

08.04.2002, SLP© No.4846 of 2002 was disposed of in terms

of the compromise arrived at between the  land owners, the

tenants (only on writ petitioners) original petitioners to

W.P.No.725 of 2002), wherein  inter alia  the following

conditions were specified:

10

 The Landlord shall construct a multi­storeyed

building  on  the  reconstituted  plot that  was  to  be

allotted to him by the NIT.

 The Tenant and Landlord shall  within a period of

one week from the filing of the compromise petition

would vacate such area out of the property covered

in the instant proceedings in their possession as is

required for widening of the Abhayankar Road.

The compromise also provided, NIT to allot one single

reconstituted plot  and redevelopment  of  suit  property to  be

carried out in accordance with the Development Plan of

Nagpur City and all tenants to be rehoused post development.

4.12  That thereafter, on the request made by the owners, the

Resolution was passed by the NIT dated 23.10.2003 to allot a

single reconstituted plot admeasuring 10602.09 sq.mts as

undivided share and the same was offered to the Buty family.

That  thereafter, the  Government by  letter  dated 12.11.2003

allotted the reconstituted plot to the owners.   From the letter

dated 12.11.2003, it  appears  that the  land  for  road will  be

provided as per the Development Plan and that the

11

beneficiaries will have to make land available for road

widening and parking.

4.13     It appears that thereafter the NIT represented to the

State Government vide Representations dated 16.08.2005 and

29.03.2006 purportedly under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act

in order to increase the width of the Abhyankar Road from 12

metres to 24 metres and for converting the reconstituted plot

from residential to commercial  in order to accommodate the

tenants running commercial shops.

4.14  It  appears  that thereafter  on 02.08.2006, the  owners

entered into a development agreement with one of the

petitioners  herein –  M/s  Goel  Ganga Infrastructure  &  Real

Estate Pvt.  Ltd. For developing the property bearing Khasra

No.320.

4.15   That thereafter the State Government passed an order

dated 22.06.2007 under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act

permitting the change of use in respect of Khasra No.320 and

315 (Part) from residential to commercial.  It appears that the

12

permission was also granted by the State to widen the

Abhyankar Road to 24 metres in place of 12 metres.

4.16   It appears that thereafter the provisional sanction was

granted by NIT on 22.04.2008 to the drawing/building map to

the layout plan submitted by developer for the construction of

a commercial complex.   It appears that thereafter vide letter

dated 18.08.2009, the NIT issued a letter to the land owners

allotting  a  single reconstituted plot  admeasuring  114079.36

sq.mts to the land owners, subject to the conditions

mentioned in the said letter.  That thereafter, on 10.02.2010, a

lease deed was executed between the NIT and the land owners

in respect of the reconstituted plot subject to the terms and

conditions mentioned in the allotment letter dated 18.08.2009.

It appears that thereafter on 15.05.2012, the NIT sanctioned

the Final Layout Plan in respect of the reconstituted plot as

per the D.C.R. of  Nagpur City.   That the building plan also

came to be sanctioned on 27.06.2012 in accordance with the

D.C.R. of Nagpur City. That, on 10.12.2014, building permit

and commencement certificates were issued by the NIT subject

to certain conditions specified therein.  That a revised building

13

plan was also sanctioned by the NIT on 11.12.2014 subject to

the conditions mentioned therein.   

4.17   That thereafter on 24.04.2015, the NIT issued notices to

the tenants asking them to vacate a portion of their shops so

as to enable construction as per the layout plan.

4.18    The aforesaid notices gave rise to filing of Writ Petition

No.2695 of  2015 before  the High Court  of  Bombay,  Nagpur

Bench.  In the said Writ Petition, the Respondents Nos.1 to 18

herein the original  writ  petitioners prayed  inter  alia    for  an

order quashing the notices issued by the NIT on 24.04.2015.

That the said petition was opposed by the original writ

petitioners as well as the NIT.   It appears that thereafter the

original writ petitioners filed an application being C.A.No.1615

of 2015 in W.P.No.2695 of 2015 praying for amendment to the

prayers in the writ petition and allow them to challenge the

sanctioned plan dated 27.06.2012 and the revised plan dated

11.12.2014.  The said amendment was opposed by the original

land owners and the developers.   However, thereafter High

Court allowed the said Amendment application.

14

4.19 It appears that, during the course of the hearing,

the High Court by order dated 03.09.2015 in W.P.No.2695 of

2015 directed the Chairman, NIT to explore the possibility of

an amicable settlement by calling the representatives of both

the tenants and the developers and land owners and directed

to submit a report to the Court.  It appears that, pursuant to

the order dated 03.09.2015, the Chairman, NIT called all the

parties.  That thereafter the Chairman, NIT submitted a report

on 15.10.2015 stating that no settlement could be arrived at

between the parties.

4.20 That thereafter, by impugned judgment and order,

the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has quashed

and set aside the demolition notice dated 28.04.2015 issued

by the NIT.  The High Court has also further observed that it

will be open for the NIT to issue fresh notices of demolition to

the  writ petitioners after the sanctioned layout plan dated

15.05.2012, the building permit granted on 27.06.2012

revised on  11.12.2014 as  well as the construction, if any,

carried out are brought in conformity with the Scheme

published  under  Section  45 of the  NIT  Act of 23.09.1964.

15

While  passing the impugned judgment and order the  High

Court has observed and held that the layout plan sanctioned

in the building permit granted are contrary to the provisions of

the Scheme published and sanctioned under Section 45 of the

NIT Act and that the same suffers from vice of internal

mischief.

4.21   That the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court dated 15.09.2016 in W.P.No.2595 of 2016 is the

subject matter of the present appeals.

5. It appears that, in the meantime and after the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original

Scheme sanctioned  under  Section 45  of the  NIT  Act  which

provided 15  metres internal road came to be  modified as

provided  under the  NIT  Act  by  deleting  15  metres internal

road.   The same came to be published in the Government of

Maharashtra Gazette on 24.04.2017.  That the W.P.No.5005 of

2017  was filed by the 18 tenants/shopkeepers before the

Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court questioning the Resolution

passed by the NIT dated 24.04.2017 issued under Section 46

16

of the NIT Act deleting 15 metres internal road and another

internal road from the Scheme.  That a Transfer Case No.23 of

2018 was filed before this Court praying inter alia for transfer

of  W.P.No.5005 of 2017 to this Court.   That is how, the

Transfer  Case  No.23 of 2015 is also listed along  with the

present group of appeals.

5.1 We  have  heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties in the transferred Writ Petition No.5005 of

2017  also, along  with the other appeals arising  out of the

impugned judgment  and  order  dated  15.09.2016  passed in

W.P.No.2695 of 2015.  

6. Mr. V. Giri, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Dhruv Mehta,

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

appellants have vehemently submitted that the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court is contrary to

the provisions of MRTP Act and also the law laid down by this

Court in the case of  Manohar Joshi  vs.  State of

Maharashtra & Anr. 2012 (3) SCC 619.

17

6.1 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective  appellants­original respondents  have  vehemently

submitted that  while  passing the impugned  judgment  and

order the High Court has not properly appreciated and

considered the relevant provisions of MRTP Act.

6.2     The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective appellants have vehemently submitted that though

in the original Scheme    framed under the provisions of the

NIT, 1936 there was a provision for 15 metres  internal road,

thereafter when the MRTP Act came to be enacted and came

into force and  the Development Plan framed and sanctioned

under the provisions of the MRTP Act did not contain any

“internal road” as was there in the Scheme published under

Section 45 of the NIT Act,   in view of the provisions of the

MRTP Act, the Development Plan overrides the DP Scheme

and, therefore, there is no question of providing any internal

road.   It is submitted that the High Court has not properly

appreciated the abovesaid at all.

18

6.3 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respective appellants that, as per

the law laid down in the case of Manohar Joshi (supra), the

DP Plan overrides the Scheme; and anything contrary to the

DP Plan in the Scheme shall have to be varied to bring it in

line with the Development Plan sanctioned under the

provisions of MRTP Act.   It is submitted that, therefore, the

High Court has  materially erred in quashing and setting

aside the notices of demolition which are based upon   final

layout plan sanctioned on 15.05.2012 and building permit

granted on 27.06.2012,  and revised on 11.12.2014,  which

were as per the provisions of MRTP Act.

6.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respective appellants that the High Court has

materially erred in  misreading and/or  misinterpreting the

judgment of this Court in  Manohar Joshi  (supra) and held

that the  statutory  obligations created upon  the  NIT under

Section 45 of the NIT Act to execute the Scheme to the extent

it is not in variation or modification of the proposals in the

Final  Development  Plan, continues to subsist and can  be

19

enforced.  It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel

appearing for the respective appellants that the aforesaid

observations are just contrary to the observations made by

this Court in the case of  Manohar Joshi  (supra).   It is

submitted that  in the case of  Manohar Joshi  (supra)  this

Court has specifically observed and held that even    if such a

variation as directed under Section 39 of MRTP Act does not

take  place, the land cannot  be  put to  use in  any  way in

contradiction with the provisions in the DP Plan.

6.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respective appellants that even the aforesaid

finding and the observation are contrary to Section 43 of the

MRTP Act which provides that once the declaration of

intention to  prepare a  Development  Plan is  presented,  no

development contrary thereto can be permitted.

6.6 It  is  further submitted by the learned counsel  for the

respective appellants that the High Court has not properly

appreciated  and considered the fact that,   in view  of the

subsequent  development and the  widening of the existing

20

road, there was no necessity for internal road as provided in

the Scheme under the NIT Act.  It is submitted that as such

in view of the subsequent development and widening of the

existing road, when subsequently the DP under the MRTP Act

was prepared, there was no provision for 15 metres internal

road as provided earlier in the Scheme under the NIT Act.

6.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the

High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that as such

in  the Development Plan prepared under  the  provisions of

MRTP Act, which was first prepared in the year 1976 and in

the subsequent DP, there was no provision for the internal

road and, despite the same, the same was not challenged by

the original writ petitioners.  It is submitted that even initially

what was challenged in the main writ petition was demolition

notices.   It is submitted that even subsequently also the DP

prepared and sanctioned under the provisions of MRTP Act,

which does not contain any provision for internal road was

not under challenge at all.  It is submitted that, therefore, the

layout plan came to be sanctioned under the provisions of the

MRTP  Act and the  building  permit  was issued  under the

21

provisions of MRTP Act, which came to be challenged

subsequently by way of amendment.  It is submitted that in

view of the relevant provisions of the MRTP Act, the

construction has to be made as per the layout plan and the

building permit granted under the provisions of MRTP ACT.

It is submitted, that, therefore, the High Court has materially

erred in quashing and setting aside the final layout plan as

well  as the  building  permit solely  on the  ground that the

same is in contravention of the Scheme published  under

Section 45 of the NIT Act.

6.8 It  is  further submitted by the learned counsel  for the

Appellants that the High Court has not properly appreciated

and considered the stand of the NIT that punctuated lines in

the  Development  Plan  only indicate the  boundaries  of the

Scheme under the  control  of the  NIT  and  it  has  no  more

significance than this.

6.9 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the

High  Court  has  materially erred in  observing that, in the

absence of any provisions contrary to the internal road,

22

shown in the Development Plan, it cannot be said that the

provisions of the internal road vanishes automatically.   It is

submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated

the fact that as such the Development Plan which has been

prepared in consonance with the provisions of the MRTP Act,

specifically do not provide any internal road, which was

earlier provided in the Scheme under the NIT Act.

6.10     It is further submitted by the learned counsel that

even the Government Resolution dated 07.10.1997

specifically provided and/or permitted  to  develop  the  land

in  question  

as per the Development Plan and not as per the Scheme.  It is

submitted by learned counsel that while issuing G.O. dated

07.10.1997, it was specifically noted that the 50 ft. (15

metres) wide road through the land is not provided under the

Development  Plan.   It is  submitted  that the aforesaid was

even considered and noted by the NIT.   It is submitted that

despite the above the High Court has observed that all

throughout the NIT desired to implement the Scheme.

23

6.11   It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the

High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that even

one consolidated plot was allotted under the provisions of the

MRTP Act and thereafter the layout plan as per the provisions

of the MRTP Act was submitted and got sanctioned and the

development permission was obtained to carry out the

construction which was granted as per the  DP sanctioned

under the provisions of MRTP Act.   It is submitted that the

High Court has  materially erred in quashing and setting

aside the demolition notices which as such were consequent

upon   the sanction of the layout plan and the grant of the

permission.   It is submitted that the High Court has

materially erred in quashing and setting aside the sanctioned

layout plan as well as the development permission granted

under the provisions of the MRTP Act.  It is further submitted

by the learned counsel that the High Court has, therefore,

materially erred in observing and holding that grant of

permission/sanction of layout plan which was in

contravention of the Scheme under the NIT Act was a

mischief in law to provide an unfair advantage to the

24

developers and the owners and it deprives the facility of

frontage to the tenants on the internal road.

6.12    It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the

High Court has materially erred in not appreciating the fact

that only 18 tenants filed the writ petition and were

aggrieved, against which majority of the tenants accepted the

settlement/compromise before this Court.   It  is stated that

the appellants are ready  and  willing to provide the same

benefit   to the  original  writ petitioners  herein  also.   It is

submitted, however, for some oblique reason and/or to get

some more benefits,  only  18 tenants approached  the High

Court and filed the writ petition.

6.13 The learned  Counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of the

respective appellants have vehemently submitted that, on one

hand, the High Court has specifically observed that, in

paragraph 86, the High Court has not set aside and it is also

not necessary for the High Court to set aside the layout  plan

and the  building  permit granted  by the  NIT, the  ultimate

observation  made by the High Court in paragraph 89(2)

25

would tantamount to quashing and setting aside the

sanctioned layout plan and even the building permit.  

6.14    Making the above submissions and relying  upon the

provisions of NIT Act as well as the  MRTP Act and the

decision of this Court in the case of Manohar Joshi (supra),

it is requested to allow the present appeals and quash and

set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court.

7. The  present appeals are vehemently opposed  by  Ms.

Rukhmini  Bobde, learned  Advocate appearing for the  writ

petitioners and Ms. Deepa Kulkarni learned Advocate also.

7.1 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

writ petitioners have supported the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court.

7.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the

impugned judgment and order passed by this High Court is

26

absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the NIT Act

as well as the MRTP Act, which is not required to be

interfered by this Court.

7.3 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for

original  writ petitioners that on true interpretation of the

provisions of NIT Act,  more particularly Section 45(3) and 45

of the NIT Act, the High Court has rightly observed and held

that unless and until the Scheme sanctioned under the NIT

Act is varied and/or is modified under the provisions of the

NIT Act, the Scheme shall prevail and shall have to be acted

upon.

7.4   The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

writ petitioners have emphasised on the object and purpose

to provide 15 metres internal road in the Scheme sanctioned

under the NIT Act.   It is  submitted  that  the  internal road

provided in the Scheme sanctioned under Section 45 of the

NIT Act was  a part of Street Scheme so as to avoid the traffic

congestion.   It is submitted that the use of land in question

on the date of such Scheme  was initially for residential

27

purposes  with internal road, one cinema theatre and the

peripheral area being used for shops/offices purposes.   It is

submitted that the object and purpose for providing the

internal road under the Scheme/Street Scheme was for

creating new or improving existing means of communication

and facilities for traffic.  It is submitted that the execution of

the Scheme was for (i)  providing huge commercial complex

inside the Scheme area to accommodate   the tenants apart

from others, (ii) widening of  Mahatma  Gandhi Road and

Abhyankar Road outside the Scheme area; (iii) providing 50 ft

(15 metres) wide internal road along with others two roads

inside the Scheme area to ease out the traffic and removing

congestion, and (iv)   to provide space open to sky for

parking  . It is submitted that, therefore,  once there was a

Scheme/Street  Scheme as  sanctioned  under  Section 45 of

the NIT Act with specific object and purpose, merely because

in the Development Plan prepared under the MRTP Act, there

was no specific reference to the internal road, it cannot be

said that the sanctioned Scheme which was sanctioned

under Section 45 of the NIT Act is not to be implemented,

28

even if the same is not varied or modified under the

provisions of the NIT Act.

7.5    It is submitted that the High Court has rightly observed

and held that unless and until the Scheme is varied or  is

modified by the Planning Authority, which in the present case

i.e. NIT, after following the due process under Section 46 of

the NIT Act, the Scheme has to be implemented and anything

including the  sanction  of the layout  plan  and/or  grant  of

building permission  which would be in contravention of the

Scheme under NIT Act, are illegal and contrary to the

provisions of the NIT as well as the MRTP Act,  and, therefore,

the High Court has rightly quashed and set aside the

demolition notices and has rightly observed that it would be

open for the NIT to  issue fresh notices of  demolition, after

sanctioned plan, the building permit as well as construction,

if any, carried out are brought in conformity with the Scheme

published under NIT Act on 23.06.1964.

7.6 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel that

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

29

is absolutely in furtherance of the object of the Scheme

published  under  Section  45  of the  NIT  Act i.e. for better

development and to avoid the traffic congestion.  The learned

counsel appearing on behalf  of  the original writ petitioners

has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case

of  Manohar Joshi (supra) reported in (2012) 3 SCC 619, in

support of their submissions that planning involving highly

complex cities depends upon scientific research, study and

experience and, thus deserves due reverence and therefore,

the Scheme  which is prepared after due consideration of

necessity for better street planning has to be implemented,

unless the same is varied and/or is modified after following

due procedure as required under the provisions of the NIT

Act.

7.7   It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel that

as  the appellants have as such subsequently implemented

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

by modifying the Scheme which was earlier sanctioned and

prepared under the NIT Act, as permitted by the High Court

and, therefore, now thereafter it is not open for the appellants

30

to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court.

8. Now, so far as challenge to variation/modification of the

Scheme under Section 46 of the NIT Act, which is the subject

matter of the Transfer Petition, it is vehemently submitted by

the learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners that the

same is absolutely in breach of the provisions of the NIT Act.

It is submitted that a detail procedure required to be followed

for variation and/or modification of the Scheme as provided

under the NIT Act has not been followed at all.   It is

submitted that neither any objections were invited nor any

opportunity was given to the writ petitioners.  It is submitted

that, therefore, subsequent variation and/or modification of

the Scheme is absolutely illegal and deserves to be quashed

and set aside.  It is submitted that even the same can be said

to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In

support of the above, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the writ petitioners­the tenants has heavily relied

upon the decision of this  Court in  Scheduled Caste and

31

Weaker Section Welfare Association  vs  State of

Karnataka reported in  (1991) 2 SCC SCC 604.  

8.1  By  making the above submission, it is requested to

dismiss the appeals and upheld the impugned judgment and

order passed by  the High Court and to allow the Transfer

Petition and quash and set aside the variation and/or

modification of the Scheme published under Section 46 of the

NIT Act.

9. Now, so far as the Transfer Petition is concerned, and

challenge to the subsequent variation and/or modification of

the  Scheme published under Section 46 of the  NIT Act is

concerned,  the  learned counsel  appearing on behalf  of the

NIT as well as the original land owners and developers have

vehemently submitted that the  Scheme is varied/modified

after following  due procedure required under the provisions

of the MRTP Act.   It is submitted that, as per Section 39 of

the  MRTP Act, where a final Development Plan contains

proposals  which  are in variation, or  modification  of those

made in a Town Planning Scheme, which has been

sanctioned by the State Government before the

32

commencement of the  MRTP Act, the Planning Authority

shall vary such  Scheme suitably  under  Section  92 to the

extent necessary by the proposals made in the Final

Development Plan.  It is submitted that Section 92 authorises

the State Government to vary and/or modify the Scheme.  It

is submitted that, therefore, if  Sections  39  and  92  of the

MRTP Act are conjointly read, it can be seen that the

variation of the Scheme subsequently shall be a formal action

to bring the  Scheme  in  consonance with the  Development

Plan.  It is submitted that, therefore, when the Development

Plan  was sanctioned after inviting the objections etc. the

subsequent variation of the Scheme to bring the Scheme in

consonance with  the  sanction Development  Plan would  be

only a formality which is required to be done under Section

92 of the MRTP Act.   It is submitted that, therefore

subsequent variation and/or modification of the Scheme

which in the present case would be as per Section 39 and

Section 92 of the MRTP Act would be absolutely in

consonance with the provisions of the MRTP Act as well as

the  NIT Act.  It is submitted that the provisions of the MRTP

Act and NIT Act are required to be read harmoniously to sub­

33

serve the objects and purposes of Sections 39 and Section 92

and other relevant provisions of the MRTP Act.

10. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the original

writ petitioners that in view of the fact and subsequently the

Scheme came to be varied as permitted by the High Court in

the impugned judgment and order and, therefore, the

judgment and order passed by the High Court can be said to

have been  implemented and, therefore,  the appellants may

not be permitted to challenge the impugned judgment and

order of the High Court is concerned,   it is submitted that

merely because without prejudice and to be on safer side if

the Scheme is varied and/or  modified, it cannot be said that

appellants have waived their right to challenge the impugned

judgment and order, more particularly when the High Court

by the impugned judgment and order has set aside the

demolition notices and virtually sought as to know that the

sanctioned layout plan and validly granted the building

permit.

34

11.   We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respective parties.   What is challenged in the present

batch of appeals is the impugned judgment and order dated

15.09.2016 passed by the Bombay High Court passed in Writ

Petition No.2695 of 2015.  On consideration of the impugned

judgment  and order  passed by the  High Court, it  appears

that the following two questions fell for determination before

the High Court:   

“1.  Whether mere absence of proposal of “internal road ”

in the final Development Plan   under sub­section (6) of

section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning

Act and its existence in the Scheme, published under Section

45 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, can be termed as

‘variation’ or ‘modification’, as contemplated by section 39 of

the MRTP Act?,  

1.  Whether the impugned notices of demolition, based

upon  final layout  plan  sanctioned  on  15­05­2012

and the building permit granted on 27­06­2012 and

revised on 11­12­2014, need to be set aside for want

35

of Internal Road, which was the part of the Scheme

sanctioned under Section 44 of the NIT Act?   

11.1     It is required  to  be noted that initially  demolition

notices  dated  24.04.2015 were  challenged  before the  High

Court issued by the NIT.   At this stage, it is required to be

noted that the said demolition notices were issued

consequent upon the sanctioned layout plan dated

15.05.2012, the building permit granted on 27.06.2012 and

revised on 11.12.2014.  Subsequently, by an amendment, the

original  writ  petitioners  challenged the  plan sanctioned  by

the NIT on 27.06.2012 and the sanction granted to the

revised plan on 11.12.2014.   The said amendment was

allowed.   The challenge was mainly on the ground that the

sanction granted is illegal and contrary to the Scheme.   The

Scheme which was sanctioned in the year 1964 under

Section 45 of the NIT Act provided 15 metres internal road.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that the improvement

Scheme known as the “Abhyankar Road Widening and Buty

Mahal Street Scheme” was prepared and sanctioned under

36

the provisions of NIT Act in the year 1964.   However,

thereafter, the MRTP Act came to be enacted and came into

effect subsequent to the enactment of the NIT Act i.e. with

effect from 28.12.1966.  From the chronology of list of events

noted hereinabove it appears and it is not in dispute that the

First Final Development Plan under Section 31 of the MRTP

Act came to be sanctioned on 03.06.1976,  which do not

contain 15 metres internal road as was there in the Scheme

sanctioned under Section 45 of the NIT Act.   Even

subsequently also, when the DP was revised in the year 1989

and thereafter in 2001, the above internal road  was not

depicted in the revised DP. That thereafter the Government

allotted reconstituted composite plot under the MRTP Act and

original  land owners/developers submitted the layout plan,

which came to be sanctioned by the NIT and even the

building permission was granted under the provisions of the

MRTP Act.   Therefore, the NIT issued the demolition notices

dated 24.04.2015 impugned before the High Court so as to

allow/permit the original land owners/developers to put up

the construction on the land in question as per the

sanctioned layout plan and the building construction

37

permission.  The High Court by the impugned judgment and

order has held that as in the Scheme sanctioned under

Section 45 of the NIT Act 15 metres internal road is provided,

unless the same  is varied and/or modified under Section 46

of the NIT Act  by  the Planning Authority,   the same shall

have to  be implemented and thereby the  High  Court has

quashed and set aside the notices of demolition dated

24.04.2015 keeping it open for the NIT to issue fresh notices

of demolition to the original writ petitioners after the

sanctioned layout plan dated 15.05.2012, the building permit

granted dated 27.06.2012 and revised on 11.12.2014 as well

as the construction, if any, carried out are brought in

conformity with the Scheme published under Section 45 of

the NIT Act on 23.06.1964.

11.2    Therefore, the  short  question  which  is  posed for

consideration  before this Court is whether, in the facts and

circumstances of the case,   when the Development Plan

sanctioned under the provisions of MRTP Act do not provide

an internal road from the land in question,  still the Scheme

published under Section 45 of the NIT Act which provided 15

38

metres internal road would be applicable and/or would have

to be implemented, though the Scheme may be contrary to

the Development Plan sanctioned under the provisions of the

MRTP Act ?

11.3   To answer the aforesaid question the object and

purpose of MRTP Act,  relevant provisions of MRTP Act are

required to be referred to and considered.

11.4    From the statement and object of the MRTP Act 1966,

it appears that the same has been enacted to make

provisions for: (1) planning the development and use of land

in regions established for their purposes and for constitution

of  Regional Planning  Boards therefor;   (2) to  make  better

provisions  for the  preparation of  Development  Plan with a

view to ensuring   that Town Planning Schemes are made in

the proper manner and the execution is made effective; (3) to

provide for  the compulsory acquisition of land required for

public purposes in respect of the plans, and (4) for purposes

connected with the matters aforesaid.   The said Act is

enacted to make provisions for planning the development and

39

the use of land in regions established for their purpose and to

ensuring that Town Planning Schemes are made in a proper

manner and their execution is made effective.  Therefore, the

MRTP  Act came to be enacted  with aforesaid object and

purpose.

11.5      Section 3 of the Act permits the State Government to

establish any area in the State to be a region. A regional plan

is supposed to be prepared  for various subjects which are

mentioned in Section 14 of the Act. The ‘Development Plan’ is

defined under Section 2(9) of the Act as a plan for the

development or redevelopment of the area within the

jurisdiction of Planning Authority. Section 2(19) defines the

“Planning Authority” to mean a local authority, and it

includes some other specified authorities also.  There  is  no

dispute that  the Development Plan has to be prepared “in

accordance  with the  provisions of regional plan”  which is

what is specifically stated in Section 21(1) of the Act.”

11.6     Section 39 of the MRTP Act provides for ­

   Section 39. “Variation of town planning scheme by development plan  –  where a  final development plan contains proposals which are

40

in variation or modification of those made in a town planning scheme which has been sanctioned by the State Government   before the commencement of this Act, the Planning Authority shall vary such scheme suitably under Section 92 to the extent necessary by the proposals made in the final development plan.”

11.7 We are concerned with the Final Development Plan

of 1976 which does not contain the 15 metres internal road

from the land in question as against the 15 metres internal

road provided in the final Scheme of 1964.  Thus the Scheme

of 1964 prepared and sanctioned the provisions of the NIT

Act to the extent of providing 15 metres internal road can be

said to be  not in consonance  with the  Development Plan

sanctioned under the provisions of the MRTP Act.

11.8    Section 43 of the MRTP Act provides for restrictions on

development of the land after the date on which the

declaration of intention to prepare the Development Plan for

any area is published in the official gazette except as

provided under proviso to Section 43 of the Act.   Section 46

of the  MRTP  Act provides that the Planning  Authority in

41

considering the  application  for  permission  for  development

shall  have due regard to the provisions  of any draft or final

plan  or proposals published by means of notice submitted or

sanctioned under the MRTP Act.  Section 59 of the MRTP Act

provides for preparation of the Scheme under the MRTP Act,

which specifically provides that the Planning Authority may

prepare one or  more  Town  Planning  Scheme for the  area

within its jurisdiction or any part thereof for the purpose of

implementing the proposals in the Final Development Plan.

As such, we not concerned with Section 59 of the MRTP Act,

as in the present case, the Scheme which provides 15 metres

internal road was prepared and sanctioned under the

provisions of the NIT  Act and prior to the enactment of MRTP

Act and, therefore, Section 39 read with Section 92 shall be

applicable.

11.9  Therefore, on conjoint reading of Sections 39, 43,

46 and even Section 59 of the MRTP Act, the Development

Plans prepared and sanctioned under the provisions of   the

MRTP  Act shall  prevail.   Therefore,   there cannot  be  any

development and/or construction permitted contrary to the

42

Development Plan prepared and sanctioned under the

provisions of  the MRTP Act, though the Scheme   prepared

and sanctioned under Section 45 of the NIT Act may permit

such development and/or construction.   As such, the

aforesaid view which we are taking is supported by the

decision of this Court in the case of Manohar Joshi (supra).

In the case of  Manohar Joshi  (supra), after considering the

relevant provisions of the MRTP Act as well as the NIT Act,

this Court has specifically observed and held that when there

is a conflict between the  Development Plan  prepared and

sanctioned under the provisions of MRTP Act and the Scheme

sanctioned under the provisions of the NIT Act, the DP shall

override the TP Scheme.  It is also further observed that even

if the variation, as directed under Section 39 of the MRTP Act

does not take place,   the land cannot be put to use, in any

way, in contradiction with the provisions of DP Plan.  In the

case of  Manohar  Joshi  (supra) this  Court confirmed the

findings recorded by the High Court that the DP Plan

overrides the  TP  Scheme.   This  Court  did  not accept the

submission that the Development Plan and the TP Scheme

43

operate independent of each other and, until the State

Government exercise its power of eminent domain under the

Development Plan, and acquires the land, the land owners

can develop its property as per the user permitted under the

TP Scheme.  While not accepting the above submission, it is

observed by this Court that permitting a development

contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan, knowing

fully well that the user under the TP Scheme is at variance in

the Development Plan will  make provisions of Sections 39,

42, 46 and 52 of the MRTP Act meaningless.  Therefore, the

contrary observation and finding recorded by the High Court

that unless and until the Scheme is varied under Section 46

of the NIT Act as required under provisions of Section 39 of

the MRTP Act, the Scheme sanctioned under Section 45 of

the  NIT Act  shall  subsist  and can be  enforced,  cannot  be

sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set

aside.

11.10 It is required to be noted that though in the

Scheme sanctioned under the provisions   of the  NIT Act

proposing  15  metres internal road  was in operation  since

44

23.01.1964,   when the MRTP Act came into force and even

thereafter when the First Development Plan was sanctioned

under Section 31 of the MRTP Act for  Nagpur  in the year

1976 in which  there was no proposal for 15 metres internal

road, and even thereafter, twice the Development Plan was

revised first in the year 1989 and again in the year 2001 in

which also there was no provision for the 15 metres internal

road, despite the above, at no point of time, anybody

including the original writ petitioners challenged the

Development Plan under the  MRTP Act in which the 15

metres internal road was not shown.  Even thereafter also, at

no point of time, and even in the writ petition, the original

writ petitioners challenged and prayed to set aside the

Development  Plan  in which  there  was no provision  for  15

metres internal road, though the same was mentioned in the

Scheme prepared and sanctioned under Section 45 of the NIT

Act.  

11.11     It is also required to be noted that even the land

owners/developers have got the layout plan sanctioned and

obtained the building permission under the provisions of the

45

MRTP Act.  Considering the object and purpose of the MRTP

Act noted hereinabove,  it appears that though there was a

provision for internal 15 metres road in the Scheme under

the NIT Act which was sanctioned in the year 1964,

thereafter much development had taken place and there are

changed  circumstances.   In the  Development  Plan/revised

Development Plan the existing road came to be widened from

12 metres to  24 metres  and, therefore,  when  the  DP was

prepared and sanctioned under the MRTP Act, there was no

proposal for  15  metres internal  wide road.  As  discussed

hereinabove, the Development Plan prepared and sanctioned

under the  MRTP  Act  would override the TP  Scheme.   As

observed hereinabove, there cannot be any development

and/or construction permitted contrary to the DP Plan under

the MRTP Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned

judgment and  order  passed  by the  High  Court cannot  be

sustained.

11.12 A faint attempt was made on behalf of the original

writ petitioners that, in the DP Plan, there was punctuated

line which can be said to be 15 metres internal road from

46

Abhyankar Road.   However, on considering the part plan of

sanctioned Development Plan of Nagpur City sanctioned by

Notification dated 10.09.2001 (upon which the reliance has

been placed  by the  original  writ  petitioners), the  aforesaid

cannot be accepted.   As rightly contended on behalf of the

NIT, the punctuated lines are described as Mouza

Boundary/NIT Scheme Boundary.  It is to be noted that even

the High Court  noted that there is a conflict between the DP

Plan and the Scheme sanctioned under Section 45 of the NIT

Act.

11.13 Even the findings recorded by the High Court that

the action of the  NIT in sanctioning the layout  plan and

granting building permit is mischief of law, cannot be

accepted.   The layout plans are sanctioned and the building

permit has been granted absolutely in consonance with the

DP sanctioned under the MRTP Act.   The demolition notices

were received pursuant to and in furtherance of the building

permit and so as to enable the original land

owners/developers to put up the construction as per the

layout plan sanctioned and the building permit granted.

47

Therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that the action

of the NIT was mischief in law.

11.14     It is required to be noted that, on one hand, the

High Court has specifically observed in paragraph 86 that the

High Court has not set aside and it is also not necessary for

the  High Court to set aside the layout plan and the building

permit granted  by the  NIT, the  observations  made  by the

High Court in paragraph 89(2) would tantamount to virtually

quashing and setting aside the sanctioned layout plan in the

building permit.   The sum and substance and the resultant

effect of the observations made by the High Court in

paragraph 89(2),  the observation made by the High Court in

earlier  part  of the  judgment virtually  restrains  the original

land owners/developers not to put up any construction on

the building layout plan and the building permit granted

under the MRTP Act.   Therefore, it appears that though not

specifically quashing and setting aside the sanctioned layout

plan and the building permit granted under the MRTP Act,

the High Court has nullified the sanctioned layout plan and

the building permit granted under the MRTP Act.

48

11.15 It is also required to be noted that the dispute is

pending since many years. The land owners/developers

entered into compromise with other similarly situated

tenants.  Now, only 18 tenants are opposing the development,

though the land owners/developers have agreed and are

ready and willing to give similar treatment to them also which

would be given to other tenants as agreed before this Court.

It  appears that for  some reasons and/or  to pressurize the

land owners/ developers to give  them some more benefits,

the original writ petitioners are opposing the

development/construction.   Though the original land

owners/developers are having the  building  permission and

have got their plans sanctioned under the provisions of MRTP

Act and even after incurring huge expenses, they are not in a

position to put up any further construction because of the

pending  litigation.  Therefore, the  equity  would  also  be in

favour of the appellants as land owners/developers.   As,   at

this stage,  it is required to be noted that even those tenants

with whom the original land owners/developers have entered

into a compromise before this Court have appeared through

49

the Advocate and have stated that they are out of possession

since last more than ten years and therefore, they all have

requested  to  quash and set  aside the impugned  judgment

and order  passed  by the  High Court  and permit the land

owners/developers to complete the construction.

11.16 Insofar as the submission  made  by the learned

counsel appearing on behalf  of  the original writ petitioners

that after the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court, the NIT has modified the Scheme as permitted by

the High Court and, therefore, the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court is acted upon and, therefore,

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

may not be permitted to be challenged by the NIT and/or the

developer is concerned, the same has no substance.   Merely

because to avoid any  further  legal  complication,  if the NIT

has modified the Scheme that would not preclude the NIT

and/or the original land owners/developers to challenge the

impugned judgment and order.

11.17    In view of the above submissions and for the reasons

stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order

50

passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set

aside.

TRANSFERRED CASE © No.23/2018:

12. Now, so far as the Transferred Case © No.23/2018 is

concerned, the Writ Petition filed by the original writ

petitioners being  Writ Petition  No.5005 of 2017  has been

transferred to this Court pursuant to the order passed by this

Court  dated 03.11.2017.   In  the  petition, the  original  writ

petitioner have prayed to quash and set aside the Notification

dated 21.04.2017 issued by the NIT and the NIT Resolution

No.27/1167 dated  07.03.2017  and  Resolution  No.17/1165

dated 03.01.2017 by  which the original Scheme of 1964

sanctioned under Section 45 of the NIT Act has been modified

in exercise of power under Section 45 of the NIT Act and the

15 metres internal road has been deleted.

12.1  It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the original writ

petitioners  that  the Notification modifying  the Scheme and

deleting 15  metres internal road is  without following any

procedure as required under the Act and without inviting any

51

objections and even the  approval  of the  State  Government

has not been obtained.  However, considering the contents of

the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the NIT in which it is

specifically stated that after considering the objections sent

by the 15 writ petitioners in Petition No.2017, the Authority

unanimously passed a Board Resolution  in exercise of power

under Section 46 of the Act.  Therefore, it cannot be said that

no opportunity at all was given to the petitioners.   The

decision to modify the Scheme by deleting 15 metres internal

road has been taken after considering the objections raised

by the writ petitioners.  It is required to be noted that Section

39 of the MRTP Act mandates the Planning Authority to vary

the  Scheme  in  line  with the  Development  Plan sanctioned

under the MRTP Act.  It is required to be noted that when the

DP was sanctioned, without any proposal for the 15 metres

internal road, first in the  year  1976 and  thereafter in the

years 1989 and 2001,  the same was after following the due

procedure and the same was approved and sanctioned by the

State Government.   Therefore, thereafter, when the Scheme

to the extent in conflict with the DP Plan has been modified

as mandated under Section 39 of the MRTP Act, after

52

considering the objections raised by the original writ

petitioners, thereafter, the same cannot be said to be illegal.

Therefore, reading Section 39 of the MRTP Act and the

provisions of the NIT Act harmoniously, the impugned

Notification modifying the Scheme and/or Board Resolution

modifying the Scheme deleting 15 metres wide road,   which

would now be in line with the Development Plan sanctioned

under the MRTP Act,   the same cannot be said to be illegal

warranting interference of this Court.  Therefore, challenge to

the Notification dated 21.04.2017 issued by the NIT and the

respective NIT Resolution modifying the Scheme deleting 15

metres internal road fails.

13.   In view of the above and for the further reasons stated

above, all the respective Civil Appeals are hereby allowed and

the impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2016 passed

by the High Court of  Bombay, Bench of Nagpur passed in

Writ  Petition  No.2695  of  2015 is  hereby  quashed  and  set

aside.  

53

13.1   The Transferred Case © No.23/2018 stands dismissed

for the reasons stated hereinabove.  

However, it is observed that to the respective original

writ  petitioners  shall  also  be given  the  same treatment  as

would be available/given to other tenants as agreed before

this  Court  and/or  as  per the  settlement  entered  into  with

other tenants.

14. All these appeals are allowed accordingly with the above

observations and the Transferred Case stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.  

…………………..……………………J. (A.K. SIKRI)

…………………………………..……J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

…………………..……………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi, JANUARY 22, 2019.