Bombay High Court Upholds Planning Board’s Authority: Orders University to Remove Unauthorized Compound Wall Blocking Neighboring Properties’ Access

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of enforcing compliance with planning regulations and directed the University to remove all unauthorized obstructions, including the compound wall and barbed wire fencing, which blocked access to neighboring properties. The court emphasized the finality of the Goa Town and Country Planning Board’s 2015 directive and rejected the University’s claims of regularization for the disputed wall. The judgment clarified the scope of jurisdiction under the Goa Town and Country Planning Act and reaffirmed property owners’ rights to access.

Facts

1. Construction and Blockage: The University constructed a compound wall in 2010 without prior permissions. The wall obstructed access to neighboring properties, particularly lands owned by Dr. Suresh Shetye (Survey Nos. 193, 197, and 198).
2. Regularization Claims: The University claimed that the Greater Panaji Planning and Development Authority (GPPDA) regularized the wall in 2018. However, the regularization order and plans submitted did not clearly cover the disputed sections of the wall.
3. Previous Directions: In 2015, the Goa Town and Country Planning Board directed the University to remove all obstructions blocking access. The University initially complied in part but later contested the order.
4. Dispute: Dr. Shetye repeatedly requested action against the unauthorized construction, asserting that the wall rendered his properties landlocked.

Issues

1. Whether the compound wall was lawfully regularized by the GPPDA in 2018.
2. Whether the Goa Town and Country Planning Board had the jurisdiction to direct removal of the compound wall.
3. Whether Dr. Shetye had enforceable rights to access his properties through the University’s land.
4. Whether the University’s inconsistent stands on the regularization of the wall affected its legal claims.

Petitioner’s Arguments (University)

1. Regularization: The University contended that the compound wall was regularized under the GPPDA’s 2018 order.
2. Jurisdictional Limits: It argued that the Town and Country Planning Board lacked jurisdiction to direct removal of the wall. The Planning and Development Authority (PDA), not the Board, held powers under Section 52 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act.
3. Civil Court Remedy: The University asserted that disputes over property access rights should be resolved in a civil court, not through writ petitions.
4. Easement Rights: It argued that Dr. Shetye’s claim for access amounted to a claim of easementary rights, requiring adjudication in civil proceedings.

Respondent’s Arguments (Dr. Shetye)

1. Illegal Construction: Dr. Shetye emphasized that the compound wall was not regularized and was constructed without lawful sanction.
2. Inconsistent Stands: He highlighted the University’s contradictory submissions in various proceedings, undermining its credibility.
3. Right of Access: Dr. Shetye asserted his right to unimpeded access to his properties and relied on the 2015 Board directive as a valid exercise of jurisdiction to address obstructions.
4. Jurisdiction of the Board: He maintained that the Board had sufficient authority to direct removal of obstructions under Sections 8 and 52 of the Act, as the issue pertained to planned and regional areas.

Analysis of the Law

1. Jurisdiction Under the Act:
   • Section 52 grants PDAs the power to address unauthorized constructions.
   • However, the Board exercises overarching authority under Sections 8 and 10, especially in cases involving contiguous areas under planned and regional jurisdiction.
2. Compliance with Permissions:
   • The Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, require approvals for all developments. The University’s compound wall lacked such permissions.
3. Doctrine of Finality:
   • The Board’s 2015 directive attained finality as it was not immediately challenged by the University.
   • Administrative orders must be reasoned and follow statutory processes, as emphasized in Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan.

Precedent Analysis

• Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010): Reinforced the need for reasoned administrative orders.
• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978): Highlighted the procedural fairness required in administrative actions.
• Sebastiana Cardozo v. State of Goa (2015): Established the importance of planned development and compliance with statutory planning norms.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Regularization Claim Unsupported: The University failed to provide evidence that the disputed sections of the wall were covered under the GPPDA’s 2018 order. The annexures and plans referred to buildings, not the compound wall.
2. Jurisdiction of the Board: The Board acted within its powers to direct removal of blockages obstructing access to neighboring properties. Its order was valid and enforceable.
3. Inconsistent Stands by the University: The University’s varying positions in different proceedings cast doubt on its claims and supported the conclusion that the wall was unauthorized.
4. Access Rights: The court found merit in Dr. Shetye’s claim for unimpeded access and ruled that the University’s actions unlawfully landlocked his properties.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the University’s petition challenging the 2015 Board order. It directed the University to comply with planning regulations and remove the compound wall blocking access to neighboring properties. The judgment underscored the authority of planning boards and the necessity of adherence to statutory norms.

Implications

1. Strengthening Planning Norms: The ruling reinforces the accountability of institutions to obtain proper permissions for developments.
2. Protecting Property Rights: It affirms property owners’ rights to access and ensures that unauthorized constructions do not hinder such rights.
3. Jurisdictional Clarity: The judgment clarifies the scope of authority between PDAs and the Town and Country Planning Board under the Act.

Also Read – Calcutta High Court: Adverse Possession Requires Trial to Prove Essential Conditions; Rejection of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 Must Be Based Solely on Plaint’s Averments