IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sunil B. Shukre, M.W. Chandwani, JJ.
Jamshid Kersi Dalal and ors. – Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 321 of 2022 A/W. Interim Application No.1025 of 2021, Writ Petition No.322 Of 2022 A/W. Interim Application No.124 Of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Maharashtra & Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 28(2) - Right to challenge notification - Legality and correctness - Claim of compensation - Legal procedure – modification - sanctioning a Draft - Whether insertion of a new road in Draft Development Plan is a modification of substantial nature – Held, Petitioners have also raised objections about sanctioning of impugned modifications on grounds as non-consideration of objections and report of Planning Committee not following prescribed time-lines there being no necessity to have proposed DP Road and increasing of congestion and pollution - Court do not find any substance in these additional grounds of objections as there is nothing on record which shows that no proper procedure and no proper time-lines have been followed by authorities nor is there any data generated upon a field research made into subject to support apprehension of increase in pollution crowding congestion and no necessity - Writ Petitions are partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. These petitions raise a common challenge to the legality and correctness of substantial modifications, modification nos.EPR-19 and EPR39, in respect of proposed 12 mtr. D.P. Road made in Schedule-A, Part-C of the notification dated 17th February, 2018 issued by the State Government sanctioning a Draft Development Plan for the original limit of Pune Municipal Corporation.
4. The petitioners, in these petitions, are residents of Sopan Baug, Cooperative Housing Society, Ghorpadi, Pune and their houses are situated in Survey No.59 and 58 bearing CTS No.503. They claim that their Survey No. (old) 59 is abutting Survey No.61 and as the proposed 12 mtr. D.P. Road passing through Survey No.61 and 62 cuts through the Green Belt situated in Survey No.61 and 62 and has also a potential to block the adjoining Nala and cause more pollution, there is a legal injury to them and, therefore, they have a right to challenge the notification dated 17th February, 2018 to the extent it sanctions the substantial modifications to the Draft Development Plan for Pune city, namely, modification nos.EPR-19 and EPR-39. Background facts which led to sanctioning of the modification nos.EPR-19 and EPR-39 are as follows :-
(b) As the PMC did not take any decision on the report of the Planning Committee submitted to it, and did not submit the Draft Development Plan to the Government of Maharashtra for its sanction within the stipulated time limit, the Government of Maharashtra vide order dated 27.03.2015, appointed a Committee under Section 162 of the MRTP Act under the Chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune to complete the legal procedure by performing the duty of the Planning Authority. This Committee considered the report of the Planning Committee and also other relevant factors and made some modifications and changes to the Draft Development Plan under Section 28(4) of the MRTP Act. These modifications and changes made in the Draft Development Plan were published by the appointed Committee in the official Gazette dated 26th September, 2015.
(c) The Committee so appointed submitted for sanction the Draft Development Plan along with modifications to the Government of Maharashtra under Section 30 of the MRTP Act vide its letter dated 26th September, 2015.
(d) The Government of Maharashtra, in accordance with the provisions of Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act, sanctioned a part of the said Draft Development Plan, excluding the modifications of substantial nature, vide notification dated 5th January, 2017, duly published in the Government Gazette. The Government of Maharashtra, however, invited suggestions and/or objections from the general public vide its notice dated 5 th January, 2017, in respect of the excluded parts from the Draft Development Plan which was partly sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra.
(e) After following the procedure, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its power under Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act, sanctioned the excluded parts of the revised Draft Development Plan for original limit of Pune City vide its notification dated 17th February, 2018, as specified in Schedule-A, a
Harijan Layout Sudhar Samiti and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
The discretion of the sanctioning authority under the MRTP Act must be upheld, and not every objection must be accepted. Public participation in the planning process is essential, and individual conc....
The court emphasized that the petitioner should approach the appropriate authority if an adverse order is passed by the Government, as the matter is pending with the Government.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, if the land is not acquired within the specified period, the....
The correction of boundaries as canvassed by the respondents is merely rectification of the boundaries and does not amount to removal of parts of the waterbody falling under section 37 of the MRTP Ac....
Easementary rights against the State require 30 years of uninterrupted use; 20 years of claimed use by the plaintiffs was insufficient to establish such rights.
The court upheld the authority of the State Government to make variations in the Town Planning Scheme and directed the Town Planning Officer to consider objections against the proposed variation in a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.