MDA Ordinance 1974

  1. —section 3, MDA, Ordinance, 1974—scope and authority of MDA and Municipal Corporation Mirpur as to disposal of lands in designated/transferred areas—Distinguished—It is crucial to emphasize that even after the amendment, the powers of the Municipal Committee [Now Corporation] continued to be restricted. Following the transfer of certain areas to the MC through the amendment and government notification, the Municipal Committee’s authority over these areas was confined by the amended provisions of section 3 of the 1974 Ordinance and the notification dated 14.2.1985. Consequently, it can be inferred that despite gaining control over specific areas, the MCM did not automatically inherit the powers of the MDA. The amended Ordinance of 1974 did not include provisions for such an automatic transfer of authority. Binyamin vs Parveen Akhtar & 17 others 2024 SCR 368 (B)
  2. SS. 3 (2) (A) &3(4) — Notification of 1985 — Only developed area of Mirpur town could be transferred to the Municipal Committee — There is no stipulation of making plots in the area transferred — Powers vested in Municipal Committee related only to the allotment cancellation and transfer of proprietary rights of the plots already in existence and not the power of creation of new plots. Administrator Municipal Committee v. Mumtaz Ali and others 2001 SCR 263 (C)
  3. S. 11 — Master Plan and Master Programme — Authority is bound to act in accordance with Master Plan — The only power available to authority is given in second proviso to make alterations as per actual requirement — There is no provision in the Ordinance that Master Plan can be amended or varied — However, the general principle of law, as enunciated in section 21 of the General Clauses Act, is that where a power to pass an order is conferred then that power includes the power to add ,to amend, very or rescind the order, but this power is exercisable only in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) — It follows that the Mirpur Development Authority can only modify the Master Plan by getting approval of the Government — Power to amend it is not vested in the Authority — Held: Authority is bound to abide by the Master Plan and it cannot violate it. Residents of Hamidpur Colony, Chakswari v. Fazeelat Begum and 5 others 2000 SCR 547 (A)
  4. Ss. 12, 16, 19r/w MDA (Amendment) Ordinance 1984, Local Government Act,1990 — MDA Ordinance 1974 is a special statute which deals with specified area of Mirpur town—Before amendment of 1984 MDA was the sole authority to prepare development scheme and Municipal Committee had limited powers which were subject to the approval of MDA — Power of Municipal Committee remained limited even after the amendment — After handing over the control of certain area to the Municipal Committee would not automatically invest the powers which were available to MDA — Local Government Act 1990 is not specifically meant for Mirpur town and provision of the said act would be operative in relation to Mirpur town subject to amended Ordinance 1974 which is a special law — Notification of 1985 is to be judged in view of provision of special law rather than the general law — It particular situation is not covered by amended Ordinance 1974 then provision of Local Government Act would be applicable. Administrator Municipal Committee and others v. Mumtaz Ali and others 2001 SCR 263 (A)
  5. S. 27 — It deals with the powers of the Authority and its delegation to the Chairman or a Member or an officer of the Authority, it does not deal with the delegation of powers of the Allotment Committee to the Chairman. Walayat Begum v. Revising Authority MDA 1998 SCR 221 (A)
  6. S. 48 (4) and (5) postulates that the Authority is vested with the power to constitute an Allotment Committee consisting of such number of members as may be determined with the approval of Government — Allotment Committee may further delegate its powers to Sub-Allotment Committee consisting of not less than three members — Allotment Committee cannot delegate its powers to the Chairman — Chairman is not vested with any power of allotment. Walayat Begum v. Revising Authority MDA & 3 others 1998 SCR 221 (B)
  7. Non payment of price of the plot in dispute did not ipso facto operate as cancellation of allotment — Allotment form — The words clearly, negative the power of the MDA to treat an allotment cancelled without a formal order. M. Ajaib  v.  Hakim Ali and others 1993 SCR 333 (A)
  8. Revising Authority was empowered to scrutinise and pass suitable orders in respect of allotments made by the Allotment Committee or the Chairman as delegatee of the Authority. Walayat Begum v. Revising Authority MDA & 3 others 1998 SCR 221 (C)
  9. Order of transfer — Evidentiary value — An order of transfer of plot passed under Section 39 of the Ordinance read with Regulations 13, 14 is a public document admissible in evidence and order issued under Section 39 needs no registration under the Registration Act. WAPDA through Engineer, Mangla Dam Raising Project, WAPDA, Mangla and another v. Sr. Asif Ayub Khan and another  2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 673 (B)
  10. S. 39 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. WAPDA and another v. Sardar Asif Ayub Khan and another 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 673 (D)
  11. Section 6 — appointment of Chairman MDA — contention that the respondent cannot be removed by the Govt. from office till expiry of 5 years — Held: respondent/Chairman can hold office only during pleasure of the Govt. and Govt. is empowered to remove him at any time. Respondent while accepting the appointment order vested by the Govt. deriving authority under the provisions of section 6 has accepted the terms and conditions that his appointment is on the pleasure of Govt. and he can be removed at any time.  Further held: the appointment of respondent was at the pleasure of the Govt. and the Govt. is empowered to remove him at any time. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others v. Dr. M. Amin 2014 SCR 258 (D) 2003 SCR 463, Brig. (Rtd.) M. Saeed Akhter and others v. AJK Govt. and others (Civil Appeal No.142/2011 decided on 12.6.2011), rel.
  12. S. 6 — office of Chairman — discretionary appointment — writ — its maintainability — contention that appointment was made for 5 years Govt. not competent to remove — Held: respondent accepted appointment order made under statutory provisions which clearly speaks that the appointed Chairman shall hold office during the pleasure of the Govt.  Before specifying the period of 5 years it is clearly mentioned ‘unless sooner removed’ the very basic and governing clause speaks that ordinarily the period of the office of Chairman shall be 5 years unless sooner removed — Further Held: the appointing authority vested with the powers to remove the Chairman before the specified period. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others v. Dr. Muhammad Amin 2014 SCR 258 (A)
  13. Master plan/sector plan — amendment of — held: under the provisions of the Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance, 1974, the master plan/sector plan can only be changed by the authority with prior approval of the Government. Ali Shan v. M.D.A. & 18 others 2014 SCR 535 (A) PLJ 1996 SC (AJ&K) 198 & PLJ 2012 SC (AJ&K) 54 rel.
  14. —Section, 11— amendment in master plan— u/ s.11 of the MDA ordinances 1974, the Authority can make changes as per actual requirement, subject to the approval by the Government but held the master plan cannot be amended or varied. Shah Rehman v. Mirpur Development Authority & others  2022 SCR 1259 (B) 2000 SCR 547 ref.
  15. — Power of authority regarding to make change in original master plan and creation of any new plot — Held: under the provision of MDA Ordinance, 1974, the Authority is empowered to make necessary addition and alteration as per actual requirements in the approved master plan, subject to the approval of the Government. Further held, the additions and alterations can only be affected, firstly, to meet the actual requirements and secondly, subject to the approval of the Government. The actual requirements may include the municipal amenities and facilities attached with the residential plots but suspicious marking and creation of new plots in the name of adjustment or readjustment through China-cutting etc. cannot be termed as the actual requirement. Further held, when the creation of plot is itself unlawful, the question of sanction of the approval from etc. government does not arise. Shahnaz Qamar v. Iftikhar Begum & others 2022 SCR 1277 (B) 2000 SCR 547 ref.
  16. —Objects and extent of operation of—Ordinance pertains to Mirpur Town— Prior to 1984, MDA, had exclusively authority regarding development of schemes—Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance, 1974, is a unique legal framework that pertains specifically to the designated region commonly known as Mirpur Town. Upon examination of the aforementioned Ordinance, it becomes apparent that, prior to its amendment in 1984, the Mirpur Development Authority held exclusive authority in formulating development schemes, among other responsibilities. The MC, during this period, possessed limited powers, contingent upon approval from the MDA, as outlined in sections 12, 16, and 19 of the 1974 Ordinance. Notably, despite the amendment in 1984, these sections remained unchanged. Binyamin vs Parveen Akhtar & 17 others 2024 SCR 368 (A)
error: Content is protected !!