Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article examines the role of Planning Authority in regulating development of lands/properties by the individuals within it's local limits and the police power entrusted to it to initiate criminal proceedings against violation thereof by any individual or group of persons including Architects and contractors for abetting the offence of unauthorized construction. Most interestingly, the Authority too has a presupposed obligation to remain within the confines of Law in so far as the development / construction undertaken by it is concerned and is equally amenable to the said offence in case of violation of Statutory Rules. In such an event, the immunity i. e. protection from action under "good faith" is not available to the officers in default if it is proved that the officer has exceeded his jurisdiction or exercised his jurisdiction where it is not vested in him in undertaking development / construction or acted with mala fide intentions. In the ultimate analysis, this article is fortified by the legal maxim that whosoever intending judicial intervention must himself/ itself come with clean hands. This case study is a classic example of the Planning Authority invested with the police power to curb unauthorized development has itself been caught on the wrong foot. The article ultimately deals with two key issues namely: 1) Ownership and use of Statutory recreational open space of the sanctioned layout and 2) Provisions relating to criminal proceedings against unauthorized development / construction: persons vs authority.
Vinod Maheshwari (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: