9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposed to earmark the said land under reference as a recreational ground with suitable internal network of roads during the revision of the development plan which was in the offing. Being aggrieved by the said rejection of the plan , the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal to the Government of Maharashtra under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' 3. The appellants, who are ratepayers of the Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay and claim to be members of Various ecological action groups, appeared in the appeal and opposed the same contending, inter alia, that the whole of the said land should be kept reserved for a green belt or recreational ground in the interest of the general public. 4. The appeal was heard by the Minister of State for Urban Development, the respondent No. 2 herein, the respondent No. 2 set aside the order of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation rejecting the plan submitted by the respondent Nb.5 after hearing the petitioners as also the Municipal Commissioner and directed sanctioning of the plan on certain conditions which will be referred to later in this judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evelopment by the Planning Authority. Section 46 enjoins that the Planning Authority in considering an application for permission shall have due regard to the provisions of any draft or final plan or proposals published by means of notice submitted or sanctioned under the Act. Section 47 provides for an appeal to the State Government or to an officer appointed by the State Government by any applicant aggrieved by an order granting permission on conditions or refusing permission under Section 45. 7. In allowing the appeal of the respondent No. 5 and directing sanction of the development plan, the respondent No. 2 observed that in view of the clear provisions of Sections 46 and 31(6) of the Act and having regard to the position that in the sanctioned plan of 1966, the said land was included in the residential zone and no proposal to exclude it therefrom in the draft revised development plan had been published, the Municipal Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the application for approval of the plan submitted by the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the Bombay Municipal Corporation had decided to revise the 1966 Development Plan. We have already referred to Section 46 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent No. 5. But, as there was no such draft revised plan as has been stated before this Court even by the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Commissioner was not justified in merely relying upon a proposal for the preparation of a draft revised plan. An order rejecting a development plan submitted by the owner of the land should be supported by some concrete material. In the absence of any such material, it will be improper to reject the plan on the ground that there is a proposal for revision of the draft plan or that such a revision is under contemplation. We are, therefore, of the view that the ground for rejecting the plan submitted by the respondent No. 5 was not tenable and the appellant authority was justified in allowing the appeal. 9. It is urged by Mr. Kalsekar that in any event no appeal lay under Section 47 when the Municipal Corporation had decided to revise the development plan. We are afraid, we are unable to accept the contention. The same contention was advanced before the respondent No. 2 and it was rightly rejected. Section 47 of the Act does not warrant the contention urged by the learned Counsel. In our opinion, to hold that after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with the direction of the respondent No. 2. This contention of the learned Counsel has no foundation whatsoever. There is no material on record to show that the Municipal Corporation which is the Planning Authority, had prepared the draft revised plan in accordance with the direction of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, in our opinion, has acted in public interest by imposing the conditions mentioned above. The conditions would show that considerable area out of the disputed land has been reserved for recreational ground or green belt. The plan, as sanctioned by the respondent No. 2 with the conditions imposed, has been shown in the draft revised plan. It was open to the Municipal Corporation to accept the verdict of the appellate authority and it has done so by not challenging it in the High Court or before this Court. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal challenging the order of the respondent No. 2 sanctioning the development plan of the respondent No. 5. 13. Now we may take up the two Special Leave Petitions being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17376 of 1985 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17377 of 1985. A few facts may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners filed two applications for review. Both the said applications for review were dismissed by the Division Bench after, considering all the points including certain additional grounds to the effect that certain contentions had not been dealt with earlier by the judgment dated October 9/10, 1985. The petitioners have not challenged the judgment of the High Court passed on the review applications. They have, however, filed before this Court the above two Special Leave Petitions. 17. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17376 of 1985 arises out of Misc. Petition No. 463 of 19 74 whereby the petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the said resolution dated 14-3-1974. We are of the view that the contention of the petitioners against the validity of the resolution is no longer tenable, regard being had to the fact that the draft revised development plan has since been published and the plan submitted by the respondent No. 5 and conditioned by the respondent No. 2 is not inconsistent with the draft revised plan. In that view of the matter, Mr. Kalsekar also has not seriously pressed the validity of the said resolution. Accordingly, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
