[S.J. Vazifdar, J.]

1. Petitioner No.1 is a registered society which claims to be established, inter-alia, for protecting open spaces in Thane City, Maharashtra. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 claim to have been using the suit plot for sports, cultural and other activities. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the trustees of respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 claim to have entered into an agreement with respondent No.7 M/s. Ratnamani Developers Pvt. Ltd. for the development of the land in question which we will presume belongs to respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 are the Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane, the Commissioner of respondent No.8, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane Region, the Assistant Director of Town Planning of respondent No.8 and the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, respectively.

2. The petitioners have filed this Public Interest Litigation, inter-alia, for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings in respect of change No.M/19 of the suit plot in the final Development Plan published by the State Government in the Official Gazette on 4th October, 1999 and to restore the original user stipulated in the Development Plan as submitted by the Planning Authority under section 30(1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for final sanction on 19th February, 1996. The petitioners have also sought a Writ to quash and set aside an order dated 18th December, 2003, in M.A. No.80/03 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, respondent No.10, according permission to the Trust to develop the property pursuant to an agreement with the developer, respondent No.7.

3. Respondent No.8 – Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) by a letter dated 2nd July, 2004, responded to the queries raised by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act. One Sanjay S. Deshmukh, an officer of TMC filed an affidavit dated 16th August, 2005, in this petition. One Hemant Ramdas Thakur working as a Town Planner in the office of the Assistant Director of Town Planning filed an affidavit dated 20th October, 2005. The facts appearing in these three documents are relevant for the purpose of considering the petitioners case under the MRTP Act.

4(A) In the year 1974, the property was shown as open space in the Development Plan.

(B) The draft Development Plan published on 21st December, 1991, showed the land to be in gaothan area.

The said Deshmukh’s affidavit states that in the draft Development Plan of 21st December, 1991, the plot was “shown to have been proposed to be reserved as open space.” This, however, Mr.Apte, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of TMC, states was a mistake. He relied upon Schedule I to the Government Notification dated 4th October, 1999. Under the column “Proposals as per submitted Draft Development Plan under Section 30 of the MRTP ACT, 1966”, it is stated as follows in respect of the said plot:-

“Existing open space situated on North-East side of Site No.13.” “Extension to school.”

The said Thakur’s affidavit states that in this plan, the land was “designated” as an “existing entertainment use”. During the hearing and in the written submission on behalf of the Assistant Town Planner, it is stated that the land was shown as “Existing Recreational use”.

There is no affidavit filed by either the said Deshmukh or the said Thakur stating that there was any error in their respective affidavits. The 4th October, 1999 Notification relied upon by the respondents in this regard is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Further, even if we were to presume Mr. Apte’s submission to be correct the plot was, even according to him, shown as an “existing open space”.

5. The reply to the RTI query states that on 6th October, 1994, the revised draft Development Plan was published wherein “Existing entertainment/recreation user” was shown in respect of the said plot which was recommended to be included by change No.22 in congested area. The reply als