The main legal point established in the judgment is that objections to the reservation of land under a development plan must be pursued through the appropriate legal recourse, and delay in approaching the court with a petition can impact the validity of the objections.

JUDGMENT :

Y.G. Khobragade, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is owner of land Survey No. 505/04 situated at Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule, prayed for quash and set aside reservation on land admeasuring 67 R which has been made vide Entry No. 178 under the second revised development plan of the Dhule Municipal Corporation under section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planing Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act').

3. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is owner of land survey No. 505/04 admeasuring 1.07 H. R and out of said land 67 R land reserved under second revised development plan. The respondent No.2 published second revised development plan on 09.09.2005 and shown 67 R land of the petitioner reserved for transport and truck terminus in second revised development plan. But prior to that, on 01.02.2005, the respondent No.2 published Notice under section 23 of the Act in the Government Gazette. Thereafter, on 23.12.2010, the respondents published Notice under section 26(1) of the Act in the official gazette and Notice under section 31 of the Act published on 28.12.2012. However, in the meantime, on 24.03.2006, petitioner applied for sanction of layout in respect of Survey No.505/4 at Dhule which has been sanctioned by the competent authority, but after the application, inspection report was prepared and area of layout shown 1 H 07 R, which has been endorsed by the competent authority on 18.04.2006 which reveals that, the said property is adjacent to Bombay Agra Highway and at some distance building boundaries are shown, however, after re-submission of plan on 20.04.2006, the competent authority made endorsement dated 21.04.2006 about no objection for sanction of the layout subject to correction in respect of road widening. Thereafter on 08.09.2006, no objection was issued, wherein it has been specified that some land has been acquired from the petitioner's land for the purpose of road widening for which the petitioner raised no objection but while making endorsement, it was made clear that, behind the land under layout which was under consideration, there is reservation for truck terminus. The respondent No.2 proposed said reservation for road from the ruck terminus to the highway. Accordingly respondent No.2 proposed 12 meters width for widening of proposed road which directly connect the truck terminus to the Highway. However, on 04.04.2006, respondent No.3 Deputy Director of Town Planning, Dhule informed the respondent No.2 about sanctioning layout plan of the petitioner in respect of survey No. 505/4 subject to conditions prescribed therein. Subsequently Respondent No.2 passed resolution No. 162 dated 09.09.2005 for revising second development plan in view of section 38 read with section 23(1) of the Act and appointed the respondent No.3 as Town Planning officer under section 24 of the Act for drafting second revised development plan of Dhule city. Accordingly the same was prepared and published vide resolution No. 148 dated 27.04.2010 and objections under sections 26(1) of the Act were invited by publication of notice in English Marathi News papers on 27.11.2020.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that, the concerned authority already granted conversion of land to non agricultural purpose and sanctioned layout. Therefore the petitioner proceeded further and deposited requisite fees for non agricultural assessment and layout. Thereafter, petitioner applied with the respondent No.2 for permission to raise construction over the plot out of survey No. 505/04. The respondent no.3 recommended to accord permission in favour of the petitioner for raising construction as per industrial building plan dated 05.02.2007 ( Exh. F).

5. T