Back
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, M. W. CHANDWANI
Jamshid Kersi Dalal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
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, 2
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
