FORWARD CONSTRUCTION CO. & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus PRABHAT MANDAL. (REGD.) ANDHERI & ORS. ETC. ETC.

FORWARD CONSTRUCTION CO. & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus PRABHAT MANDAL. (REGD.) ANDHERI & ORS. ETC. ETC.

The user of the reserved plot had not been substantially changed. Commercial use to augment income for public purposes does not amount to a change necessitating prior modification of the development plan under Regulation 3. The principle of res judicata, including Explanation IV and VI of s.11 CPC, was applicable, and subsequent public interest litigation was not maintainable as prior litigation was not bona fide. The High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition on the basis of the proviso to Building Regulation No. 3.

Parties
Appellant: Forward Construction Co. & Ors.; Respondent: Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 November 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeals Against Bombay High Court Judgment Dated 14.11.1983
Outcome
Appeals allowed, special leave petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Change of User, Res Judicata, Public Interest Litigation, Interpretation of Building Regulations, Development Plan Modification
Municipal Law Town Planning Property Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Change of User Res Judicata Public Interest Litigation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forward Construction Co. & Ors.

Appellant

Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeals Against Bombay High Court Judgment Dated 14.11.1983

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether change of user under Building Regulation 3 required modification of the development plan for the plot reserved for BEST bus depot
  2. 2 Applicability of res judicata/constructive res judicata to subsequent public interest litigation
  3. 3 Whether municipal corporation could use part of the reserved plot for commercial purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The user of the reserved plot had not been substantially changed. Commercial use to augment income for public purposes does not amount to a change necessitating prior modification of the development plan under Regulation 3. The principle of res judicata, including Explanation IV and VI of s.11 CPC, was applicable, and subsequent public interest litigation was not maintainable as prior litigation was not bona fide. The High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition on the basis of the proviso to Building Regulation No. 3.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed, special leave petition dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment and order dated 14th November 1983 of the Division Bench, Bombay High Court, are set aside.
  • Judgment and order dated 23rd November 1982 of the Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition are restored.