Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Puhlicaiion oU Pf.~n :iind date o1 its operntion.-lmmediately ofter ihf? Regional Plan is approved b)! the State Government, the Slate Government sha] publish in such manner as may be prescribed by rules, a notice stating that the Regional Plan has been approved, and naming a· place where a copy ot the n,."'' ,.......," h.P 'f'\!".OP.cted at al! reasonable hours, and shail specify hereir a date Bihar Regional Development Anthority Act, 197" r ·1; Secs. 20-22 ] {not being ocrlier than 3bcty days from the date of the publicallon of such notice) on which the Regional Plan shell come into operation. ::_:::". f-':r-,,sMci:io11 on cl":,afga of' use of- l~nd or clevi::lopm0ni thereof. -(1) No person shall on or after the publicaiion of a draft Plan instituie, ·or charge the US'."! of any land covered b;1 the Plan io · qny purpose other than agriculture, or carry out any development in respect of any such land wi:hou! the previous per. mission in writing of the authority. (2) Notwithslanding anything contained in any law for the tim~ bP.ing 111 force, the permission referred lo in suo-sectlon (t) shall !'10! be granted 0111ervv1sE: !hz.n in conformity with the provisions of the Plan. Commen'm & cas..:-1.mw [Reservation for persons whose land was acquired by, the authorities ror constructions of !he houses, being allotted 10· applicants by the Authority, ap pears to 'be. based on sound principles. I L. Dhingra vs. State of U. P., (1987) 2 sec 533. Sub-sectiofl (2) or section 23 provides for non-obstente ck-:-.use, as a result whereor notwithstanding anything contained in any law for ~he time being in force, any permission tor use ot any land in terms of sub-section (1) thereof .cannot be granted otherwise than in conlirmity with the provisions. o;' tho Master Pian. Doman Paswan vs. §tate of Bihar, ·; 988 PLJR 968. The Draft Nlaster Piao in respect of Patna which siill survives can only be alierec' or amended in accordance with ih0. orovisions of section 2·4 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act. The- schemes framed under the .Bihar Town Pl;.:;nning and Improvement Trust Act should be deemed to have been framed under :he tl. R: D. Act 1974. The areas. shown in the Master Plan as "Green Beii" area cannot bo utilizeo for other purposes. ibid. P1 person going to be affected by order of removal· of encroachr-ient must be asked to oroouco his .;ight, title and interest over trie area, which should be measured by the Governmeni "Amin" and areas not covered by the documents produced by the alleged encroacher alone should be cleared of thfl encroach- ment A'ifec(bd party may also have his own "Amin". This procedure-is applica- ;:>le in cases ot roadside encroacnrnents and not for deciding inter-se disputes . bern1eon ·:wo private claimants. Kelem vs. State of Biha,~ 1989 PLJ8 264. 1a'lsmtr,,r Pl.!!n.-Development Authority sliould not seek to charge user of land. from "C~y forest" or "Green area" in the Master Plan· and tum it into resi- dential" or commercial area. Supreme Court directing Development Authority in 1he interest oi environment control to maintain the area in -quostion as Chy for- est area as shown in Master Plan. M. L Sud vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (2) sec 123. , Once the Draft Master Plan has been published, the provisions of section 23· r:ct onlv provide restrictions oh the right of concerned land-holders about user ::il' land but also puts restrictions on the power of the Development Authority it- seh to sanction a building plan which is not in conformity with the Draft Master Plan. No land can be permitted to. be used for purpose other than that shown in the Master Plan. Srikrishnapuri Boring Road Vy.apari Sangh vs. State of Bihar, "1995 fl~ P .J:=l 413. ~- .... u, na..,. ..... ,,:.in~ ----i\loticc to tenants. in possession not given.-\vhere the · ' • i: - -•:fl,....,tinn nf ih~ [ Sec ?3 Rillar Regional Development Authority Act, 1974 Town Planning Scheme in the official Ga«:ette. 'such persons wiil be enti fed re being provided with Suitable accommodation on rent i, suitable locality consid ering the nature their requirement both residential ·an-.. fo, , usiness purposes Mansukh/a! Jac/avji vs. Ahm_edabacl Municipal Cotporatkn, A1R. 1982 SC 152. De\leloroment Au~horHv.-Arbitrary enhancement of costs of housing al time of delivery of housing unit to the Allqttee by the Development .Autho,ity is open to inlcrference by Courts.-. The Development Authority is obliged to e;cplain the reasons !or'disproportionatc enhancement of cost at the limo of deiivc,)l tc the court. However, where the explanation by the Authorily for tho enhancement of cost is tounc to be reasonable, the Supreme Gour -may refuse to interfere, Indore Dove/opment Authority vs. Smt. Sadhna Agrawal, ·1995 (1) All PU·I. (SCj iOS . (-1995) 3 sec 1. P21auing !PIOCG fo, vehic!es.--A Mwnicipal Authority is under· no obiiga,ion to provide :and for being used as parv..ing place. Courts car ai the most direct Authority to consider need or persons seeking a parking place in a part.cutar area. Corporation of the City of Bang/ore vs. Fuel Lorry Owner a. /Vierch,:mts As- sociation, AIR 1994 SC 487. · I-lousing .an~ .tmprovement Scher.1es.-"Approval" and "Permission". Ordi- nariiy the difference between the expressions "approval and "permission" is U,a1 in the former case the action taken in anticipation of "approval" holds good until it is "disapproved". wh:fe in ihe latter case it does not become effective unH: ih'.3 "permlsslon is obtained' from the concerned Government. However, perrrussion subsequently granted may vahdate the previous action. U. P Avas am i/ik,w Parisad vs. Friends Co-oporatlve Housing Society Ltd. (1995) Suppi.. (3) sec 456.] .. 24. '<'l)"'~"'I~- m "3'fR;wif•riilf ~ ~~-( 1 ) ~R: ~1· ~ 'lF<ifii~; if 3-TR' o~ ~'fl1c; ~ ~ ~ "f~ <ff ·grf:;.rc:m- ~ ~ ~· ~ m ~-~ffiJf 3ticq>~ m· .ill. Tit;;q-~""R m~cm- ~ ·n.:i- ~ <ll·wll <iSI' a.q~-il~o, ~ ~, ~f~ (.rm~ ·q ~-H ~ ~ ~7floir ~!, aj ~ ~ Mf1l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~"1"ff ~; ~'U;;-R'<li tr(~~ ~;Tli ~ f-im' ~ ~- oliT ~;,;rm,~ afR" ~ffl ~ ~f:!W ~ "'II·~ ~t· ( 2 ) 3~~ ~ ~- "Ql~[ ~ ~ ~~ iR' "Zfk--ff m -wr~; ~~ji?;.;J ~t.1" %1~ ';fr~~ 'ffl' onl <:1tf.i"il Tlfct~)e,;=i ~ ~, Comrnsnts llt case-law [In view of section 30 of the Bihar Housing Board. Act. 1982 lhe decision o, the State Government is to be regarded as final in regard to any dispute relating to the Master Plan of , 952. Section 24 gives the authority under the Act ,h~ right to alter the plan ror any area. Srnt. Krishna S.ingh vs. State of Biha1; 1985 PLJR (NOC) 37. · · A total stranger cannot be pormitted to challenge the layout of 2 Co-cpo.a- tive Housing Society, ibid. Validity of allotment of land to 'Co-operative Housing Society canno, be assailed again bcrore the High· Court when the High Courl has already L!ph,3lcl . the allotment of that land to the Society in an earlier judgment. ibtd. In view of the provisions in section .17. the Master Plan tor Patna is still operational. The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the order o1 the Pa!na High Bihar Regional Development Autho;ity Act, 1974 Sec. 24 ]