Back
G. S. PATEL, KAMAL KHATA
Ramchandra Tukaram Mohite – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GS Patel, J.
1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The principal objection in this Petition is to the refusal of the State Government to accept the proposed modification to a Development Plan (“DP”) and, instead, in exercise of its discretion as the sanctioning authority under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the MRTP Act”), to revert the land to the purpose for which it was originally sanctioned or reserved initially.
3. The land in question is Gat No 432/4 admeasuring 87 Ares in the jurisdiction of the Sangli Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation (“the SMKMC”).
4. The 1st Respondent is the State Government through its Urban Development Department. The 2nd Respondent is the Municipal Corporation. The 3rd Respondent is the Chhatrapati Shahu Institute of Business Education And Research Trust, Kolhapur. The 4th Respondent is the Joint Director, Town Planning, Pune Division.
5. On 7th September 2000, the Municipal Corporation made a declaration following its Resolution No 78 of 20th July 2000. That declaration was under Section 23(1) of
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....
Zoning regulations under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act are valid, and the state's discretion in zoning decisions is not subject to judicial review unless statutory violations occur.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once land is released from reservation under section 127 of the MRTP Act, planning authorities have no jurisdiction to re-reserve the same sub....
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 relevant cut-off date in the impugned M-3 Modification regarding committed development is the date of passing of the resolution in the 7th Meeting convened on 28.03.2017 granting approval for pub....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation would lapse on the expiry of the prescribed period, and any subsequent revision of the Development Plan would not revive or ex....
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
