Bombay High Court
Lata Bhaskarrao Dabhade And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 27 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:19484-DB
W.P. No.9159/2024
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9159 OF 2024
1) Lata Bhaskarrao Dabhade
Age 61 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
2) Dipesh Ramesh Pingle
Age 40 years, Occ. Doctor,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
3) Sagar Vikram Nikam,
Age 30 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
4) Kalpana Rajesh Tayde,
Age 53 years, Occ. Household,,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
5) Saurabh Vikram Nikam,
Age 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
6) Sandipan Ankush Ingle,
Age 47 years, Occ. Service,,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
7) Suraj Darshan Suresh Sonawne
Age 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
W.P. No.9159/2024
:: 2 ::
8) Anita Govind Sabanwar,
Age 49 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
9) Sandip Subhash Dhotre,
Age 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
10) Gokul Panjabrao Salunke,
Age 39 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
11) Komal Anand Pradhan,
Age 27 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
12) Takshsheela Nagesh Surwase,
Age 37 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
13) Nagesh Sudam Surwase,
Age 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
At present Plot No.C-70, Nath nagar,
Opp. Taramati Bhavan, Aurangabad
14) Shivnand Balaji Kale,
age 33 years, Occ. Service,,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
15) Balaji Honaji Kale,
Age 42 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
16) Ganesh Anna Jadhav,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service,
W.P. No.9159/2024
:: 3 ::
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
17) Jyoti Ganesh Jadhav,
Age 37 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
18) Prabhakar Kashinath Kathar,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
19) Rekha Prabhakar Kathar,
age 33 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
20) Babasaheb Narayan Shelke,
Age 44 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
21) Vaishali Babasaheb Shelke,
Age 40 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
22) Reshmlal Shamlal Patel,
Age 48 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
23) Kaushalya Reshmlal Patel,
Age 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
24) Dnyandeo Ghanshyam Dawande,
Age 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
25) Nisha Dnyaneo Dawande
W.P. No.9159/2024
:: 4 ::
Age 27 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
26) Dinesh Nanasaheb Pathare,
Age 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
27) Rina Dinesh Pathare,
Age 40 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
28) Shahadev Dashrath Barde,
Age 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
29) Suwarna Shahadev Barde,
Age 30 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
30) Ramesh Pandurang Sonawne,
Age 53 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
31) Raghunath Punjaji Bodade,
Age 62 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
32) Chandrakant Vilas Jadhav,
Age 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
33) Sapna Sagar Aagle,
Age 30 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Samruddhi Park, Mitmita,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar ... Petitioners
W.P. No.9159/2024
:: 5 ::
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
(Copy to be served on the Govt. Pleader,
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad
2) The Director of Town Planning,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
3) The District Collector/ District Magistrate,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
4) Municipal Corporation,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
through its Commissioner
5) Appointed Officer, Draft Development
Plan, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
... Respondents
.......
Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate with
Shri Majit S. Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners
Shri A.B. Girase, Govt. Pleader for respondents - State
Shri S.S. Tope, Advocate for respondent No.4
.......
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE: 27th AUGUST, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has
:: 6 ::
been taken up for final decision.
2. Heard Shri Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Shri Girase, learned Government Pleader
representing the State respondents and Shri Tope, learned
counsel representing the Municipal Corporation, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
3. A draft development plan under Section 26(1) of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the
Act for short) was published on 5/3/2024 inviting objections
from citizens from general public. The said notice was
published in the Government Gazette of State of Maharashtra
on 7/3/2024. The planning authority accordingly proceeded
further and constituted a planning committee with the prior
approval of the Director, Town Planning of the State under
Section 28(2) of the Act on 7/5/2024. The objections/
representations were received to the draft development plan
and the planning committee submitted its report to the
appointed officer on 22/7/2024.
4. The matter was thereafter considered by the
appointed officer who considered the documents provided by
the Town Planning Department and other Departments of
:: 7 ::
Municipal Corporation and also the suggestions from the
Municipal Corporation. The appointed officer also considered
the public interest element involved for the existing and
future need of the town, the report of Town Planning
Committee along with objections received by the petitioners
and others and made certain necessary modifications/
changes in the draft development plan.
5. The State Government thereafter considered the
entire matter and found it necessary to publish the
modifications in the draft development plan for information to
public as per the provisions of Section 28(4) of the Act. A
resolution on 29/7/2024 has also been passed by the
Planning Authority resolving therein to publish modification in
the draft development plan and to submit the draft
development plan, effecting modification to the State
Government under Section 30 of the Act. By the notice dated
1/8/2024, the list of modifications has been published under
Section 28(4) of the Act for information of the general public,
which has been kept open for information to public at various
offices such as the office of Commissioner and Administrator,
Municipal Corporation, Joint Director, Town Planning, Deputy
Collector, Town Planning and Assistant Director, Town
:: 8 ::
Planning. It has also been published on the official website of
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that before publishing the information in terms
of requirement at Section 28(4) of the Act, the petitioners
who is the owner of Gut No.154, in respect of which
modification in the draft plan has been proposed, was not
given any opportunity of personal hearing. However, what we
find from the Scheme of the Act is that the Act does not
envisage any personal hearing; rather in terms of the
provisions contained in the second proviso appended to
Section 31 of the Act, before sanctioning the draft
development plan, the modification proposed to be made
either by the State Government or submitted by the planning
authority, which are further supposed to be approved by the
State Government without any further change with respect to
the draft development plan, Government shall publish a
notice in the official gazette and also in at least two local
newspapers, inviting objections and suggestions from citizens
in respect of the proposed modification within a period of one
month from the date of such notice.
:: 9 ::
7. Thus, once the State Government decides to take
recourse to Section 31 of the Act, it is incumbent upon it to
publish a notice as contemplated by the second proviso
appended to Section 31 and therefore, we have no reason to
believe that the State Government, before sanctioning the
draft development plan, will not publish the said notice.
8. However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the
petitioners states that, recourse to the second proviso
appended to Section 31 of the Act has to be taken only if
modification proposed to be made are of substantial nature
with respect to the development plan and in the instant case,
the Government may not take recourse to the said proviso by
observing that the change proposed is not of a substantial
nature.
9. The apprehension expressed by learned counsel
for the petitioners does not appear to be without any basis
for the reason that it is the petitioners' lands comprising in
Gut No.154, which forms part of the proposed modification in
the draft plan and hence, at least for the petitioners, any
change in the draft plan will be of substantial nature.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of the Writ
:: 10 ::
Petition with the direction that in case the State Government
proceeds further to sanction the draft development plan, it
shall take recourse to the second proviso appended to Section
31 and accordingly publish a notice inviting objections/
suggestions from the general public. We also provide that in
case any such notice is published, the petitioners will be
given opportunity to submit objections and/ or suggestions to
the said notice.
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Writ Petition is disposed of.
12. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. There
will be no order as to costs.
(KISHORE C. SANT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
fmp/-
