Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MANGESH S. PATIL, PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
Shri. Govind Bajirao Navpute – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
1. Heard. Rule in all the petitions. It is made returnable forthwith.
2. The learned Government Pleader and the learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.
3. Common issues arise in all these petitions, including the public interest litigation and all the matters have been heard together. In order to avoid rigmarole, we are disposing of all these petitions and the PIL by this common judgment and order.
4. In order to avoid confusion, we are taking up writ petition No. 7515 of 2024 as a lead petition.
5. The issue which has cropped and needs to be answered in all these petitions can be culled down as under:-
Whether the State Government, resorting to Section 162 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, can replace an officer appointed under Section 21(4A) in light of judgment of the High Court in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016 with connected writ petitions, when under Section 21(4A), the authority to appoint such officer is with the Joint Director of Town Planning ?
6. The issue arises from the following set of events :-
(A) Respondent – the Municipal Corporation, Chhatrapati. Sambhajinagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘P
The State Government can appoint an officer under Section 162 of the MRTP Act despite Section 21(4A) when the planning authority fails to perform its duties, as justified by supervening circumstances....
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 de....
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 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....
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 court established that the State can allot Gairan land for public purposes under the PMAY, overriding restrictions in the MLRC due to the authority granted by the MRTP Act.
The court upheld that established statutory procedures must be followed in preparing the Master Plan, limiting additional public objections after the conclusion of designated hearings.
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
