S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.:-

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate authority viz., State of Maharashtra dated 13th June 2007 confirming notice which has been issued on 31st August 2004 and a copy of which is annexed as Exh.D to the petition.

2. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation invoked section 56 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (M.R.T.P. Act) and stated therein that the Chief Officer of the erstwhile Municipal Council approved the plan for additions and alterations of Shop No.829 for the purpose of development to the extent of 33.69 sq.mtrs. on 20th January 1972 on each of the floor of ground plus upper floor structure. The report of the Junior Engineer is referred to in the notice and thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner was authorised to use the property to the extent indicated therein. However, the sanctioned development plan came into force with effect from 1st July 1974 and having regard to the said plan, petitioner’s property, more particularly described in the notice, is completely affected by the designated purpose of 35 feet wide road. In such circumstances, his authorised use in this property at "U" No.179, Sheet No.63 as per building plan offends the provisions of sanctioned Development plan of 1974. However it is expedient in the interest of proper planning of 35 feet public street leading from Suri Chowk to E.S.I. Hospital (including interest of amenities) having regard to the sanctioned development plan of 1974, the use of his land for commercial purpose should be discontinued and the ground plus upper floors be removed.

3. The notice stated that in the event petitioner failing to comply therewith, the Corporation would be constrained to remove the structure at its cost.

4. Aggrieved by this notice in terms of this provision referred to above, an appeal was preferred. The appeal also has been dismissed by the Chief Minister, who is competent authority. The petitioner, has therefore, filed the present petition challenging the notice and the order of the appellate authority.

5. Mr.Kanuga, learned Counsel for petitioner invited my attention to section 56 and contended that the petitioner’s user of the property being termed as authorised, there is no question of the petitioner being called upon to remove the building. He further submits that section 56 would have no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as what is effected by the alleged designation in the development plan is the land and its user. The land upon which the building has been constructed together constitutes petitioner’s property or any interest therein. In such circumstances, merely to avoid obligation to acquire the land and pay the market price that the Corporation has resorted to the subject provisions and the notice. Further, while the Appellate Authority was approached by the petitioner to challenge the notice, the appellate authority has referred to the extent of the user and has termed the construction to a certain extent as unauthorised and without any permission.

6. Mr.Desai appearing for Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation refers to the notice and invites my attention to the legal provisions so also the map which is annexed to the affidavit filed on record.

7. After perusing the petition and the annexures thereto, including affidavit filed in reply and rejoinder, I am of the view that petitioner’s property is clearly affected by the proposed 35 feet wide public street and the structure/building would be as stated in the notice, offending the provisions of the development plan. The Development Plan and the designation is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the building of the petitioner was put to commercial use. In my view, if the contents of notice are construed in the backdrop of section 56 so also designation in the Development Plan, then, it is not possible to agree with Mr.Kanuga that the said notice i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document