The court clarified the provisions related to the sanction of draft development plans under the MRTP Act and the impact of the composition of the Metropolitan Planning Committee on the validity of decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, CJ.

1. These two writ petitions have been heard together since the subject matter of challenge therein is common. This common judgment shall decide both the writ petitions.

2. A notice dated January 6, 2017 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department is under challenge in these writ petitions and prayer is made for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside such notice.

3. Writ Petition No. 5524 of 2017 is at the instance of 13 (thirteen) petitioners. Mr. Godbole, learned counsel has advanced arguments in support of this writ petition.

4. Mr. Redekar, learned counsel appears for the 3 (three) petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9673 of 2017. He adopted the arguments of Mr. Godbole and did not advance any additional submission.

5. It would be appropriate if we now proceed to ascertain the facts giving rise to the writ proceedings.

6. Writ Petition No. 5524 of 2017 was presented on April 19, 2017, whereas Writ Petition No. 9673 of 2017 [earlier Writ Petition Stamp No. 8995 of 2017] was presented on March 27, 2017.

7. Writ Petition No. 5524 of 2017, as filed, does not give a clear picture of the petitioners’ cause of action. An application for amendment having been granted by an order dated May 11, 2018, the writ petition was amended and the pleaded case appearing therefrom will be noted a little later after we advert to Writ Petition No. 9673 of 2017, which was filed earlier in point of time.

8. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9673 of 2017 claimed that the property bearing Survey No. 64/13/3 admeasuring 15.9 acres approximately and situated at village Tathawade, taluka Mulshi, district Pune, as described in paragraph 1, is the subject matter of the writ petition (hereafter “the subject property”, for short). It is pleaded therein that the Government of Maharashtra, in the Urban Development Department, vide Notification dated July 30, 2009 extended the limits of the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (hereafter “the Corporation”, for short) by including village Tathawade. Consequently, the Corporation by its resolution dated August 21, 2009 made a declaration under Sections 23 and 34 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter “the Act”, for short) of its intention to prepare development plan for the area newly added to its territorial jurisdiction. Notice of such declaration was published in the gazette of Government of Maharashtra, Pune Division supplement, dated October 14, 2010. On February 20, 2013, the Corporation prepared a draft development plan of village Tathawade vide Resolution No. 237 and published such plan under Section 26 of the Act. A notice was published in the gazette dated March 7, 2013 inviting suggestions/objections from the public. In such draft proposed development plan, the subject property was shown as reserved for ‘garden’. Being put on notice, the petitioners lodged objection and participated in the hearing. The Planning Authority under Section 28(4) of the Act published the changes in the Development Plan on July 23, 2014. The reservation of the subject property as ‘garden’ was sought to be deleted and proposed to be included in ‘residential zone’. Upon consideration of suggestions/objections that were received from the public in respect of the said plan, the modified plan was submitted to the Government of Maharashtra for sanction on August 1, 2014 under Section 30(1) of the Act. The appropriate department of the Government considered the modified plan and thereafter issued the impugned notice dated January 6, 2017, being the final notification, whereby a part of the said development plan of village Tathawade was sanctioned along with modifications as specified in SCHEDULE-A (as SM-1, SM-2, --- etc.), excluding the substantial modifications (as EP-1, EP-2, --- etc.) as specified in SCHEDULE-B. The effect of such an exercise was that the reservation in respect of the subjec