B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

In this Public Interest Litigation basically modification in user of a plot in Development Plan, its allotment to Respondent No. 9, illegal building construction upon it and failure of land owner – Nagpur Improvement Trust (N.I.T.) or Planning Authority – Nagpur Municipal Corporation to exercise rights or to discharge obligations, are the challenges which arise for consideration. The development plan was finalized under S. 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter MRTP Act) and NIT constituted under the Nagpur Improvement Trust, 1936 (NIT Act hereafter) was the planning authority in respect of said plot till 27.02.2002. Thereafter, it is the NMC functioning under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The Development Control Rules of 1983 & 2000 (hereinafter DCR) also need to be looked into.

2. Subject matter is a plot having House No. 1155 CTS No. 1143 at Ward No. 74, ad measuring little over 1.14 Acre. The said plot is for commercial use now. However, at the time of its initial lease on 23.09.1961, granted by the owner – NIT to Respondent No. 9 Public Trust (Sabha hereafter), it was meant for public utility.

3. The reliefs claimed in the petition are to direct Respondent No. 8 – NIT to immediately cancel allotment of said land to Respondent No. 9 on account of violation of lease deeds, allotment letter and all Land Disposal Rules, to call upon said respondents to reenter and take possession of plot and to conduct fresh public auction thereof. A direction is sought against Respondent No. 7 – Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Respondent No. 8 to demolish unauthorized structure constructed by Respondent No. 9 over it. There is also a prayer for holding of CBI Inquiry and for prosecution of those who have duped State Exchequer. Consequential Resolution No. 29/988 passed by Respondent No. 8 on 30.03.2002, its Resolution No. 7/1034 dated 11.08.2005, Government Notification dated 21.02.2004 under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, are also questioned and sought to be set aside. The Management Agreement signed by Respondent Nos. 9 to 16 (all Private hospitals) on 05.10.2005 as also lease deed by Respondent No. 8 in favour of Respondent No. 9 dated 21.12.2006 are also sought to be set aside. There is also a prayer to direct Respondent Nos. 9 to 16 to stop unauthorized and illegal use of demised property and to proceed departmentally against all officers. The last prayer is to recover property tax on said property at commercial rate with effect from 21.12.2006.

4. On 11.06.2013, this Court has issued notice only to Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 16. With the result, no notice has been issued to Respondent Nos. 2, 6, 10, 11, 14 & 17.

5. Considering the nature of controversy, we have heard the matter finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties i.e. Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 16 only.

6. We have heard Shri Tushar Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.R. Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4, Shri S.M. Puranik, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 & 7, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate with Shri K. Deogade, learned counsel for respondent No. 8, Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri A.P. Kalmegh, learned counsel for respondent No. 9, Shri C.S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for respondent No. 12, Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri P.D. Meghe, learned counsel for respondent No. 13 and Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 16.

7. Shri Mandlekar, learned counsel has submitted that Respondent No. 9 – Maharashtra Rashtra Bhasha Sabha (Vidarbha Region) (hereinafter referred to as Sabha), applied to Respondent No. 8 on 24.12.1960 for allotment of a plot of land on North Ambazari Road to act in furtherance of and to advance its objects. Resp