Partly allowed

Manjinderjeet Singh and Anr. v. the Chief Secretary-State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jun 2015PIL/117/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Construction restrictions near an Air Force station and aerodrome were enforced through directions to identify and demolish offending structures after hearing affected persons. The court declined relief under the expired notification, required preventive enforcement, and made the rule partly absolute.

What did the court decide?

Identification of offending structures within six months and removal within one year, after hearing affected persons and serving speaking orders; prevention of further construction breaches.

Manjinderjeet Singh and Anr. Vs the Chief… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2015)

pil117

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.117 OF 2003

¶5

1 Mr.Manjinderjeet Singh
2 Mr.Ram Mahadeo Thorat...Petitioners
vs.
1 The Chief Secretary
 The State of Maharashtra
2 The Divisional Commissioner,
 Pune Division, Pune
3 The District Collectors,
 Collectorate of Pune, Pune
4 The Director, Town Planning,
 Pune
5 The Commissioner,
 Pune Municipal Corporation
 Pune
6 The Chief City Engineer
 Pune Municipal Corporation,
 Pune
7 State Govt. of Maharashtra
 Maharashtra
8 The Commandant, Air Force,
 Lohegaon, Pune
9 The Secretary, Govt. of India,
 Ministry of Defence, New Delhi
10 Union of India, New Delhi ...Respondents
Mr.Salil U. Ray for the petitioners
Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for the respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 7
Mr.Bharat Mehta for the respondent No.3
Mr.Rajesh Behere for the respondent Nos.5 and 6
Mr.Y.S.Bhate a/w Mr.N.R.Prajapati for the respondent
Nos.8 to 10

¶6

CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A.K.MENON, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH SUBMISSIONS ARE HEARD:FEBRUARY 20,2015
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT : JUNE 8, 2015

¶7

JUDGMENT:

¶8

2 pil117

¶9

1This Public Interest Litigation is filed for
inviting attention of the Court to the alleged
breaches committed of the directions issued in
exercise of powers under sections 3 and 7 of the
Works of Defence Act,1903 (for short “the said Act
of 1903”). The said Act of 1903 has been enacted
for imposing restrictions upon the use and
enjoyment of lands in the vicinity of Works of
defence.

¶10

2The petitioners are the residents of city of
Pune. There is an Aerodrome/ Air Force Station
established at village Lohegaon, Pune. According
to the case made out in the petition, the said Air
Force establishment at Pune gives coverage and
protects the Oil rigs off Coast of Gujarat and
Mumbai, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay
at Mumbai, the Ammunition Factory at Kirkee, the
National Defence Academy at Khadakvasala and various
other important establishments in the region. The
petitioners are relying upon the following
notifications:

¶11

(a) Notification dated 4th July 1966 issued by
the Ministry of Defence which was published
in Government Gazette which according to the
petitioners provides that no construction
shall be made and no plantation of trees
shall be made within 900 meters from the
perimeter of Bomb Dump at Wagholi, Pune and
Missile Installation at Viman Nagar, Pune.

¶12

3 pil117

¶13

(b) Notification dated 1stOctober 1975
published in Government of India Gazette
under sections 3 of the said Act of 1903
which puts restrictions on the use of land
comprised in the area lying within a distance
of 1000 yards from the crest of the outer
parapet of the Bomb Dump of the Air Force
Station at Pune.

¶14

(c)Notification dated 5th January 1988 issued
by the Ministry of Civil Aviation of the
Government of India in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 9-A of the Aircraft
Act,1934 (for short “the said Act of 1934”).
The said notification prevents construction
of any structure and plantation of any tree
within the distances specified in Annexure I
to this notification in relation to the civil
and Military Aerodromes incorporated in
annexure III to this notification, from the
funnels of the runway and from the runway
strip.

¶15

(d) Notification dated 22nd May 2001 issued by
the Ministry of Defence in exercise of powers
under sections 3 and 7 of the said Act of
1903.

¶16

(e) Notification dated 14th February 2007
issued by the Government of India in exercise
of powers under sections 3 and 7 of the said
Act of 1903 which is published in Government
Gazette on 3rd March 2007.

¶17

pil117

¶18

¶19

3The basic allegation made in the petition is
thatinviolationoftheaforesaid
notifications, construction of multistoried
buildings has been allowed to be made by the
Pune Municipal Corporation and by the
Authorities of the State. A prayer is made for
issuing a writ of mandamus directing demolition
of multistoried buildings constructed in
violation of the aforesaid notifications.

¶20

4We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned AGP for respondent
nos.1,2,4 and 7, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.5 and 6, the learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 and the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.8 to 10.

¶21

5The learned counsel for the petitioners invited
our attention to the notifications dated 1st October
1975, 5th January 1988, 22nd May 2001 and 14th
February 2007. He also invited our attention to the
letter dated 21st June 1998 addressed by the Air
Commodore of the Air Force Station at Pune to the
Commissioner of the Pune Municipal Corporation (the
respondent No.5). Along with the said letter, a
sketch showing the area within which construction
activity should be restricted was forwarded to the
respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the
petitioners invited our attention to the stand taken
by the State Government that the notification dated
22nd May 2001 was no more in force. He urged that the

¶22

5 pil117

¶23

said stand is erroneous. He urged that if the
constructions made in contravention of the orders
passed under section 3 of the said Act of 1903 and
the notification issued in exercise of powers
conferred by the said Act of 1934 are tolerated, it
will endanger very important defence establishments
thereby seriously compromising the security of the
nation. He pointed out that considering the several
terrorists attacks in the recent past, the
directions in the aforesaid notifications will have
to be implemented scrupulously and the development
made contrary to the said notifications will have
to be pulled down. He pointed out the affidavit of
the year 2004 filed by Shri Dattatraya S. Pharate,
the Deputy City Engineer, (Building Permissions) of
the Municipal Corporation of city of Pune, in which
it was contended that the notification dated 22nd May
2001 had expired. He submitted that the said stand
has no basis. The learned counsel representing the
respondent Nos.5 and 6 urged that the Pune Municipal
Corporation has strictly followed the directions
issued by the State Government. He urged that no
construction in prohibited area has been permitted
by the Pune Municipal Corporation. The learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.8 to 10 also invited
our attention to the relevant provisions of law as
well as the documents placed on record.

¶24

6We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. We have perused the annexures to the
petition as well as the affidavits and the annexures
to the affidavits on record. It will be necessary to

¶25

pil117

¶26

¶27

consider the effect of the sections 3,7 and 9 of the
said Act of 1903 which read thus:

¶28

“ 3. Declaration and notice that restrictions will be imposed .—

¶29

(1) Whenever it appears to the 1 [Central Government] that it is necessary to impose restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of any work of defence or of any site intended to be used or to be acquired for any such work, in order that such land may be kept free from buildings and other obstructions, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders.

¶30

(2) The said declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate and the place where a sketch plan of the land, which shall be prepared on a scale not smaller than six inches to the mile and shall distinguish the boundaries referred to in Section 7, may be inspected; and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the said declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality.

¶31

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive proof that it is necessary to keep the land free from buildings and other obstructions.

¶32

1 Substituted by the A. O. 1937, for “L G.”.

¶33

“ 7. Restrictions .—From and after the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 3, sub-section (2), such of the following restrictions as the 1 [Central Government] may in its discretion declare therein shall attach with reference to such land, namely :—

¶34

(a) Within an outer boundary which, except so far as is otherwise provided in Section 39, sub-section (4), may extend to a distance of two thousand yards from the crest of the outer parapet of the work,—

¶35

(i) no variation shall be made in the ground-level, and no building, wall, bank or other construction above the ground shall be maintained, erected, added to or altered otherwise than with the written approval of the 2 [General Officer Commanding the District], and on such conditions as he may prescribe;

¶36

(ii) no wood, earth, stone, brick, gravel, sand or other material shall be stacked, stored or otherwise accumulated :

¶37

Provided that, with the written approval of the 3 [General Officer Commanding the District] and on such conditions as he may prescribe, road-ballast, manure and agricultural produce may be exempted from the prohibition:

¶38

Provided also that any person having control of the land as owner, lessee

¶39

pil117

¶40

¶41

or occupier shall be bound forthwith to remove such road-ballast, manure or agricultural produce, without compensation, on the requisition of the Commanding Officer;

¶42

(iii) no surveying operation shall be conducted otherwise than by or under the personal supervision of a public servant duly authorised in this behalf, in the case of land under the control of military authority, by the Commanding Officer and, in other cases, by the Collector with the concurrence of the Commanding Officer; and

¶43

(iv) where any building, wall, bank or other construction above the ground has been permitted under clause (i) of this sub-section to be maintained, erected, added to or altered, repairs shall not, without the written approval of the 4 [General Officer Commanding the District], be made with materials different in kind from those employed in the original building, wall, bank or other construction.

¶44

(b) Within a second boundary which may extend to a distance of one thousand yards from the crest of the outer parapet of the work, the restrictions enumerated in clause (a) shall apply with the following additional limitations, namely :—

¶45

(i) 5 [no building, wall, bank or other construction of permanent materials above the ground shall be maintained otherwise than with the written approval of the General Officer Commanding the District arid on such conditions as he may prescribe, and no such building, wall, bank or other construction shall be erected :]

¶46

Provided that, with the written approval of the 6General Officer Commanding the District] and on such conditions as he may prescribe, huts, fences or other constructions of wood or other materials, easily destroyed or removed, may be maintained, erected, added to or altered :

¶47

Provided, also, that any person having control of the land as owner, lessee or occupier shall be bound forthwith to destroy or remove such huts, fences or other constructions, without compensation, upon an order in writing signed by the 7[General Officer Commanding the District]; and

¶48

(ii) live hedges, rows or clumps of trees or orchards shall not be maintained, planted, added to or altered otherwise than with the written approval of the 8 [General Officer Commanding the District] and on such conditions as he may prescribe.

¶49

(c) Within a third boundary which may extend to a distance of five hundred yards from the crest of the outer parapet of the work, the restrictions enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) shall apply with the following additional limitation, namely :—

¶50

no building or other construction on the surface, and no excavation, building or other construction below the surface, shall be maintained or erected :

¶51

Provided that, with the written approval of the Commanding Officer and on such conditions as he may prescribe, 9 [a building or other construction on the surface may be maintained and] open railings and dry brush-wood fences may be exempted from this prohibition.

¶52

1 Substituted by the A. O. 1937, for “L. G.”.

¶53

2 Substituted by Act 11 of 1921, Section 3, for “General Officer Commanding the Division”.

¶54

pil117

¶55

¶56

3 Substituted by Act 11 of 1921, Section 3, for “General Officer Commanding the Division, District or Brigade”.

¶57

4 Substituted by Act 11 of 1921, Section 3, for “General Officer Commanding the Division”.

¶58

5 Substituted by Act 28 of 1940, Section 2, for the original words.

¶59

6 Substituted by Act 11 of 1921, Section 3, for “General Officer Commanding the Division”.

¶60

7 Substituted by Act 11 of 1921, Section 3, for “General Officer Commanding the Division, District or Brigade”.

¶61

8 Substituted by Act 11 of 1921, Section 3, for “General Officer Commanding the Division”.

¶62

9 Inserted by Act 28 of 1940, Section 2.”

¶63

“ 9. Notice to persons interested .—

¶64

(1) At any time before the expiration of—

¶65

(a) the period of eighteen months from the publication of the declaration referred to in Section 3, or

¶66

(b) such other period not exceeding three years from the said publication as the 1 [Central Government] 2 [* * *] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct in this behalf,

¶67

the Collector shall cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land, stating the effect of the said declaration and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land affected by anything done or ordered in pursuance of such declaration may be made to him :

¶68

Provided that, where anything has been done in exercise of the powers conferred, in case of emergency, by Section 6, sub-section (3), the notice prescribed by this section shall be given as soon as may be thereafter.

¶69

(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of any damage ordered to be done or, in the case referred to in Section 6, sub-section (3), done in exercise of any of the powers conferred by the said section, and the particulars of any restrictions attaching to the land under Section 7, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for damage to such interests and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under Section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent.

¶70

pil117

¶71

¶72

(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue-district in which the land is situate.

¶73

(4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business.

¶74

1 Substituted by the A. O. 1937, for “L. G.”

¶75

2 The words “with the previous sanction of the G. G. in C.”, repealed by the A. O. 1937.”

¶76

7It will be also necessary to make a reference
to the notifications on which the petitioners are
relying upon. The petitioners are relying upon the
notification dated 4th July 1966. Even a true copy
of the said notification is not placed on record
and, therefore, effect of the said notification
cannot be considered. The second notification on
which reliance is placed is dated 1st October 1975
which is published in Government of India Gazette
dated 11th October 1975. The said notification reads
thus:

¶77

“S.R.O. 327 – In exercise of the powers
conferred by section 3 of the Works of
Defence Act,1903, (7 of 1903), the Central
Government hereby declares that it is
necessary to impose the restrictions
specified in clause (b) of section 7 of the
said Act, upon the use and enjoyment of the
land situated in the district of Poona in the
State of Maharashtra described in the
Schedule hereto annexed, being land in the

¶78

10 pil117

¶79

vicinity of the Bomb Dump at Air Force
Station, Poona in order that such land may be
kept free from buildings and other
obstructions.

¶80

2A sketch plan of the land may be
inspected in the Office of the Collector,
Poona.

¶81

THE SCHEDULE

¶82

All the land comprised in the area lying
within a distance of one thousand yards from
the crest of the outer parapet of the bomb
Dump of Air Force Station, Poona, in the
State of Maharashtra.”

¶83

K.R.BALIGA, Joint Secy.”

¶84

8Thus, as per the said notification,
restrictions as specified in clause (b) of section 7
were imposed upon the use and enjoyment of the land
comprised in the area lying within a distance of one
thousand yards from the crest of the outer parapet
of the Bomb Dump of the Air Force Station, Poona
(now known as Pune). In view of clause (b) of
section 7 of the said Act of 1903, what was
prohibited within the said distance was construction
of buildings, wall or other construction by using
permanent material above ground without prior
approval of the General Officer Commanding the
District.

¶85

11 pil117

¶86

9The grievance in this PIL is that the State
Government as well as the Pune Municipal Corporation
did not give adequate publicity to the said
notification and that the building plans were
sanctioned in breach of the said notification.

¶87

10Another notification is dated 5th January 1988
issued in exercise of powers under section 9-A of
the said Act of 1934. The said notification prevents
construction of buildings and plantation of trees on
any land within the limits specified in Annexure-1
to the said notification in respect of the civil and
military Aerodromes set out in Annexure-3. The
Aerodrome at Lohegaon, Pune has been included in
Annexure-3. Restrictions on construction are
specified in Annexure-1. Restrictions are as regards
the construction on the land enclosed in approach
funnels of the runway within a maximum distance of
360 meters, measured from each runway to a long
extended centre line of the runway and on the land
comprising within the runway strip of uniform width
of 150 meters, measured from either side of the
centre line which extended beyond each extremity of
the runway and the extended runway. We must note
here that this grievance is made in the petition
filed on 3rd October 2003. This aspect will have to
be borne in mind while considering the issue of
grant of relief. The relevant part of the
notification dated 5th January 1988 reads thus:

¶88

“MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
New Delhi, the 5th Jan 1988

¶89

pil117

¶90

¶91

SO988 – In exercise of the powers conferred
by Sec 9A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (39 of
1934) and in suppression of the
notification of the Govt of India in the
erstwhile Ministry of Tourism and Civil
aviation the SP MC date of the 15th March
1979. The Central Govt being of a Opinion
that it be necessary an expedient so to do
far safety of Aircraft operation hereby
direct that:-

¶92

No building or structure shall be
constructed or no tree shall be planted on
any land within the limits specified in
Annexure I to this notification in respect
of Civil & Military Aerodromes as stated in
Annexure III to this notification,
aerodromes to be constructed or developed
and notified by the competent authority in
future where thee is any building,
structure of free on such land. The owner
or the person having such control of such
building, structure or free shall demolish
such buildings or structure or as the area
may be cut such tree forthwith but not
later than a period of one month from the
date of publication of this notice in the
official gazette.

¶93

(II)No building or structure higher than
the specified in Annexure II to this
notification shall be constructed or

¶94

pil117

¶95

¶96

created or no tree which is likely to grow
or ordinarily grows higher than the height
specified in the said Annexure II, shall be
planted, on any land within a radius of
twenty kilometer from the aerodrome
reference point (ARP) of the aerodrome
listed in Annexure III to this notification
excluding the land covered by Annexure I to
this notification or aerodromes which would
be constructed or developed and notified by
the competent authority from time to time,
where the height of any building or
structure or tree on such land is higher
than the height specified in the said
Annexure-II, the owner or the person having
control of such building, structure, or
tree all forthwith but not later than a
period of one month from the date of
publication of this notification in the
Official Gazette, reduce the height thereof
so as not to exceed the specified height.”

¶97

11As far as the notification dated 22nd May 2001
is concerned, the same reads thus:

¶98

“SRO. 93 – In exercise of the powers
conferred by sections 3 and 7 of the Works of
Defence Act, 1903 (7 of 1903), the Central
Government being of the opinion that it is
necessaryandexpedienttoimpose
restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of
land in the vicinity of the Indian Air Force

¶99

pil117

¶100

¶101

aerodromes and Installations, hereby declares
that such land shall be kept free from
buildings and other obstructions and directs
that :-

¶102

 (a) no building or structure shall be
constructed, created or erected or no tree
shall be planted on any land within the
limits of 900 meters from the crest of the
outer parapet of Indian Air Force aerodromes
and Installations as given in the Annexure to
this notification. The restrictions imposed
by the Government of India in the Ministry of
Civil Aviation under section 9A of the
Aircraft Act, 1934 (22 of 1934) vide its
notification number SO-988 dated 05th January
1988 shall continue to be applicable.

¶103

(b) for the purpose of this notification, the
Air Officer Commanding or Commanding Officer
of the concerned Indian Air Force Stations or
Formations, as the case may be, shall provide
all the relevant details including land
holdings; to the Collector for inclusion in
the public notice to be given by him under
sub-section (2) of section 3 of the said Act.

¶104

2This notification shall come into force
on the date of its publication in the
Official Gazette.

¶105

“Annexure” (attached)

¶106

pil117

¶107

¶108

(Dr.Parvinder Kaur)
 Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India.

¶109

(File No.Air IIQ/37528/19/W(P&C/428-F/D(Air-II)/2001

¶110

 ANNEXURE

¶111

AIR FORCE AERODROMES INSTALLATIONS WHERE
RESTRICTIONS ARE BEING IMPOSED AS PER
SECTIONS 3 AND 7 OF THE WORKS OF DEFENCE
ACT,1903 (7 OF 1903)

¶112

(a) Flying Stations. Care and Maintenance
Unit and Ranges:

¶113

(b) Missile Installations;

¶114

(c)Radar Stations;

¶115

(d) Communication Establishments;

¶116

(e) Training Establishments;

¶117

(f) Base Repair Depots;

¶118

(g) Equipment Depots and;

¶119

(h) Air Store Parks and Bomb Dumps”

¶120

12The said notification dated 22nd May 2001 is
issued in exercise of powers under Sections 3 and 7
of the said Act of 1903. It prevents construction of
buildings and plantation of trees on any land within
the limits of 900 meters from the crest of the outer
parapet of Indian Air Force Aerodromes and
installations as given in the annexure of the said
notification. The installations include missile
installations, Radar installations and Bomb Dump.
To the affidavit of Shri Dattatraya S. Pharate, the
Deputy City Engineer (Building Permissions) of Pune
Municipal Corporation, a letter dated 19th September
2003 addressed by the Ministry of Defence of

¶121

16 pil117

¶122

Government of India to the Principal Secretary of
the Urban Development Department of Government of
Maharashtra has been annexed. In the said letter, it
is stated that the notification dated 22nd May 2001
has expired and as of that date, no such restriction
has been imposed. On the basis of the said letter,
the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development
Department of the State Government, by a letter
dated 22ndSeptember 2003 communicated to the
Commissioner of the Pune Municipal Corporation that
the notification dated 22nd may 2001 is no more
operative. Similar stand has been taken in the
affidavit of Smt. Sadhana Pradeep Naik, the
Assistant Director of Town Planning, Pune Branch,
Pune.

¶123

13It will be necessary to consider the stand
taken in the the affidavit of Air Commodore Pradeep
Singh who was the Air Officer Commanding of the Air
Force Station at Lohegaon, Pune. In paragraph 3 of
the said affidavit, he has accepted the case made
out by the petitioners that the Air Force Station at
Lohegaon, Pune protects the various establishments
as set out by the petitioners in the petition. A
grievance has been made in the said affidavit that
though instructions were issued to the District
Collector, Pune, to issue a public notice as per
the provisions of the said Act of 1903, he has not
taken any action. As regards the notification dated
22nd May 2001, in paragraph 5 of the said Affidavit,
he has stated thus:

¶124

17 pil117

¶125

“5...I further say and submit that due to
increase in the population in this area, has
created open threat to this respondent and
even the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has
already upheld the validity of Government
notification in the case of Writ Petition
No.4765 of 2000 (ASP Kapoor Vs. Union of
India). GOI MOD has directed to all District
Magistrate / District Collector / Dy.
Commissioner vide their letter No.4(9)/02/D
(Air-II) dated 20 January 2004 that the
gazette notification issued vide SRO 93 dated
22 May 2001 for imposing restrictions on
construction upto 900 meters around Air Force
Installations has been expired. The issue of
imposing some restriction on construction
activities around Air Force Installations and
airfields has been deliberated in the
Ministry and a modified proposal is under
active consideration...”

¶126

14Thus, a specific stand has been taken on oath
that by a letter dated 20th January 2004, the
Government of India, Ministry of Defence
communicated that the notification dated 22nd May
2001 has expired.

¶127

15On this aspect, it will be necessary to make a
reference to the affidavit of Shri Prakash Nivrutti
Bongale, the Assistant Director of Town Planning,
Pune Branch, Pune. A copy of the letter dated 25th
May 2007 issued by Shri M. John, Air-Vice Marshal,

¶128

18 pil117

¶129

Senior Officer in charge Administration, for Air
Force Commanding-in-Chief addressed to the Chief
Secretary of Government of Maharashtra has been
annexed. It is stated in the said letter that the
Notification dated 22nd May 2001 expired in November
2002 as no notification could be issued by the
District Collectors for imposition of restrictions.

¶130

16A copy of the Gazette Notification dated 14th
February 2007 was forwarded along with the said
letter. The relevant part of the Gazette
Notification dated 14th February 2007 reads thus:

¶131

“S.R.O.12 – In exercise of the powers
conferred by Sections 3 and 7 of the Works of
Defence Act,1903 (7 of 1903), the Central
Government, being of the opinion that it is
necessaryandexpedienttoimpose
restrictions, upon the use and enjoyment of
land in the vicinity of the Indian Air Force
Stations and Installations, hereby declares
that such land shall be kept free from
buildings and other obstructions and directs
that:-

¶132

(a) no building or structure shall be
constructed, created or erected or no
tree shall be planted on any land within
the limits of 100 meters from the crest
of the outer parapet of Indian Air Force
Stations and Installations as given in
the Annexure `A' to this notification.

¶133

pil117

¶134

¶135

(b) no building or structure shall be
constructed, created or erected or no
tree shall be planted on any land within
the limits of 900 meters from the crest
of the outer parapet of Indian Air Force
Stations and Installations as given in
the Annexure `B' to this Notification.

¶136

(c)no building or structure shall be
constructed, created or erected or no
tree shall be planted on any land within
the limits of 100 meters from the crest
of the outer parapet except that the
limit of 100 meters will extend to 900
meters from and in line with the boundary
of the bomb dump at Indian Air Force
Stations and Installations as given in
the Annexure `C' to this notification.

¶137

(d) The restrictions imposed by the
Government of India in the Ministry of
Civil Aviation under Section 9A of the
Aircraft Act,1934 (22 of 1934), vide its
notification number S.O.988, dated the 5th
January 1988 shall continue to be
applicable to the Indian Air Force
Aerodromes.

¶138

(e)For the purpose of this notification,
the Air Officer Commanding or Commanding
Officer of the concerned Indian Air Force
Stations or Installations, as the case
may be, shall provide all the relevant
details including land holdings to the
Collector for inclusion in the public

¶139

20 pil117

¶140

notice to be given by him under sub-
section (2) of Section 3 of the Works
Defence Act,1903 (7 of 1903).

¶141

2This notification shall come into force on
the date of its publication in the Official
Gazette.”

¶142

What is stated in the Gazette Notification dated
14th February 2007 was communicated by the State
Government to the Municipal Commissioners of Mumbai,
Pune and Thane Municipal Corporations as well as the
Collector of Pune.

¶143

17Thus, the stand of the Air Force is that the
notification dated 22nd May 2001 expired in November
2002. The reason being that the notification
contemplated by Section 9(1) of the said Act of 1903
was not issued within the stipulated period of 18
months and the time for the publication of such
notification was not extended by the Central
Government. There is no reason to reject the stand
taken on oath that the notification dated 22nd May
2001 expired in November 2012. Thus, when the
present PIL was filed, only the notifications dated
1st October 1975 and 5th January 1988 were in force.
During the pendency of the petition, the
notification dated 14th February 2007 was issued
which continues to operate till today.

¶144

18As far as the stand of the Pune Municipal
Corporation on the implementation of the
notifications is concerned, it will be necessary to

¶145

21 pil117

¶146

consider the affidavit of Shri Dattatrya S. Pharate,
the Deputy City Engineer of the Pune Municipal
Corporation. Relevant portion of paragraph II and
entire paragraph III of the said Affidavit read
thus:

¶147

“II...I say that prior to issuing these
guidelines on 21.6.1998 and even after
issuance of these guidelines, the PMC have
not granted a single building permission in
violation of clauses 2 to 7. I put the
petitioners to the strict proof as to whether
the PMC has granted any building permission
in violation of clauses 2 to 7.

¶148

IIIWithout prejudice to the above, I say
that the petitioners are placing reliance
upon the draft notification dated 22.5.2001
issued by the Ministry of Defence. I say
that however, subsequently the Under
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, addressed a letter dated
19.9.2003 to the Principal Secretary, Urban
DevelopmentDepartment,Governmentof
Maharashtra, setting out therein that the
said notification dated 22.5.2001 has expired
and hence as on date there is no such
restriction on construction activities around
IAF installations/units on account of this
notification. Annexed hereto and marked
Exhibit-2 is a copy of the said letter. The
Principal Secretary, Urban Development

¶149

pil117

¶150

¶151

Department of the Government of Maharashtra,
in turn, addressed a letter dated 22.9.2003
to the Municipal Commissioner of the PMC,
informing that so long as the revised
notification is not published as per the
development rules, there is no objection for
granting building permission within 900
meters. Annexed hereto and marked Exhibit-3
is a copy of the said letter.”

¶152

19Reliance is placed in the aforesaid affidavit
on the guidelines issued on 21st June 1998. The
guidelines are of clearance surfaces and
restrictions. There is a categorical statement in
clause II of the affidavit that after the issuance
of the guidelines, no permission has been granted by
the Pune Municipal Corporation in violation of
clauses 2 to 7 of the guidelines dated 21st June
1998. Further, a stand taken is that as per the
advice of the State Government, the Municipal
Corporation proceeded on the footing that the
notification dated 22nd May 2001 did not exist.

¶153

20Thus, from the above discussion, it is very
clear that even when the present petition was filed,
the notification dated 22nd May 2001 was not in
operation. Therefore, in exercise of discretionary
writ jurisdiction, the grievance regarding the
breach of the directions in the notification dated
22nd May 2001 cannot be entertained.

¶154

21We have already quoted the directions issued by

¶155

23 pil117

¶156

the notifications dated 1st October 1975, 5th January
1988 and 14th February 2007. It is obvious that no
construction could have been carried out in
contravention thereof. Therefore, constructions
made from the date of filing of this petition which
are in breach of the directions contained in the
notifications dated 1st October 1975 and 5th January
1988 as well as the constructions made in breach of
the directions in the notification dated 14th
February 2007 will have to be pulled down. The
breaches of the notifications issued under the said
Act of 1903 pose a danger to the national security.
The breach of the notification issued under the said
Act of 1934 in relation to the Aerodrome at Pune
amounts to causing danger to the security of the
members of public. Such illegalities which
compromise with the security of the defence
installations cannot be tolerated. Therefore, all
the Concerned Authorities are under a legal
obligation to remove offending structures/
constructions.

¶157

22The exercise of identifying the constructions
made in breach of the aforesaid notifications will
have to be undertaken by the respondent Nos.5 and 6
by soliciting co-operation from Air Commodore, Air
Officer Commanding of the Air Force Station at
Lohegaon, Pune. After ascertaining particulars of
the structures erected in contravention of the
aforesaid three notifications, the action of
demolition will have to be initiated by the Pune
Municipal Corporation after complying with the

¶158

pil117

¶159

¶160

principles of natural justice.

¶161

23 We accordingly pass the following order:

¶162

(i)The constructions/structures made from the
date of filing of this petition (3rd October
2003) which are in breach of the directions
contained in the notifications dated 1st
October 1975 and 5th January 1988 as well as
the constructions/structures made in breach
of the directions contained in the
notification dated 14th February 2007 shall be
pulled down by the Pune Municipal
Corporation;

¶163

(ii) The exercise of identifying the
constructions made in breach of the aforesaid
notifications which are liable to be pulled
down shall be made by the respondent Nos.5
and 6 with the assistance of an officer or
officers nominated by the In-charge Officer/
Commanding Officer of the Air Force Station
at Lohegaon, Pune;

¶164

(iii)The In-charge Officer/ Commanding
Officer of the Air Force Station at Lohegaon,
Pune shall accordingly nominate an officer or
officers within a period of one month from
today;

¶165

(iv)The exercise of identifying the
offending structures shall be completed
within a period of six months from today;
(v)The Pune Municipal Corporation shall
complete the action of the removal of the

¶166

pil117

¶167

¶168

offending structures within a period of one
year from today. The action of removal shall
not be taken without giving an opportunity of
being heard to all affected persons. The
hearing shall be confined to the issue
whether the structures have been made in
breach of the directions contained in the
aforesaid three notifications. The action of
demolition shall be taken fifteen days after
the service of a speaking order on the
affected persons;

¶169

(vi)The Pune Municipal Corporation shall
ensure that no constructions are hereafter
madeinbreachoftheaforesaid
notifications;

¶170

(vii)The Rule is made partly absolute in
above terms with no order as to costs;
(viii)The Petitioners shall serve an
authenticated copy of this Judgment on all
concerned who shall act upon the same.

¶171

(A.K.MENON,J.)

Manjinderjeet Singh and Anr. v. the Chief Secretary-State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjinderjeet Singh and Anr. v. the Chief Secretary-State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanaji Haribhau Jagdale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tanaji Haribhau Jagdale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayashree Suresh Dange Vs the Member Secretary, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Anr.

Dr. Ravipal Udhaorao Bharshankar Vs Municipal Council Hinganghat, through Its Chief Officer

Vinodkumar Manmal Jain and 4 Others Vs the Union of India, through Its Joint Secretary, Ministry of Transport Highways and 5 Others

Yeotmal Dist. Fishermen Coop. Federation, Digras, Thr Director and Others Vs the State of Maha. Thr Secretary, Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Mumbai and Others

Jyoti Gajendrasingh Rajput W/O Gajendrasingh Ishwarsingh Rajput Vs Union of India Thr. the Secty. of Min. of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Dept. and Ors.

Smt. Ashabai W/O Ramji Khandal Vs the Union of India through Its Joint Secretary Ministry of Road Trasnport Highways and 3 Others

Tanaji Haribhau Jagdale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Parsram Kripalani Vs Vanita Anil Kirpalani

Grampanchayat Kumthe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sharad Digamber Madake Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Animals and Birds Charitable Trust Ant 3 Ors. Vs Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors. and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Citizens for a Just Society Vs the State Govt.of Maharashtra and Ors.