12.wp-2931-10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2931 OF 2010 Rajvansh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (The CIDCO Ltd.) and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pravin Desai for Petitioners Mr. A.M.Kulkarni for Respondent No.1 Mrs. M.P.Thakur AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Mr. S.G.Kudle for Respondent No.5 Mr. P.I.Paulos along with Ms. Pallavi Dedhia i/b M/s. Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for Respondent No.6 CORAM : S.A.BOBDE AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners-Co-Operative Housing Societies have challenged the earmarking of Plot Nos. B-1, B-2 and B-3, 1 12.wp-2931-10.doc Sector 12, Khanda Colony, New Panvel (West) for crematorium and burial ground for the Hindu, Muslim and Christian communities. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the said crematorium and burial ground were initially earmarked for Sector 16 and that the CIDCO has now illegally earmarked the area in Sector 12 for crematorium and burial ground for Hindu, Muslim and Christian communities without complying with the provisions of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. According to the petitioners, the petitioners-Societies are located very near to the burial grounds as a result of which, the residents of the petitioners-societies would be disturbed. Going by the map which is produced on record by the Respondent-CIDCO, it does not appear that the proximity of the proposed burial grounds and crematorium is such that it would disturb the residents of the petitioners-societies particularly, it appears that there is a park and another plot on which the Balbharati Text Books building is located and after a wide diversion channel and wide proposed road, the building of the Petitioners-societies is located. Thus, there is a park and large building and the wide road between the petitioners-societies and the proposed location. Coming to the objection in law, the learned Counsel for the CIDCO 2 12.wp-2931-10.doc submitted that the CIDCO has been given charge of constructing a new city and as a part of that the CIDCO, has therefore, prepared Development Plan which did not prescribe any reservation for the plot in question where the crematorium and burial ground are proposed to be located. The land was not designated for any specific land use and it is shown as bulk land. This has not been effectively rebutted and appears to be a correct position vide relevant extracts of Sector-wise land use for suburb of new Panvel (W) at Exh. 3 to the affidavit of one Mrs. Amruta Girish Pai Associate Planner of CIDCO. The learned Counsel for the CIDCO has further relied upon the approval by the Government to the plans submitted by the CIDCO showing no particular reservation or land use in respect of the area in question. In fact, while approving the Development Plan submitted by the CIDCO, the Government has stated in paragraph 1.17 as follows: “1.17 As each area is taken up for intensive development and released to occupants, the land use for that area will remain substantially frozen, open to modification only under the time- consuming and difficult procedure set out in the Act. However, in other areas where development is not immediately contemplated, 3 12.wp-2931-10.doc the Development Authority should clearly enjoy a certain degree of freedom and flexibility in planning so as to modify its plans to suit changing circumstances. CIDCO, therefore, proposes to designate the land uses for the project area in broad terms only, except for those areas which have been taken up for development where land uses are set out much more specifically and in detail.” 3. We thus, find that this is not a case where a Development Plan is sought to be modified in the sense that the existing reservation or land use is sought to be changed to a reservation for or land use of burial ground. Section 37 contemplates a procedure to be followed by the Planning Authority where it proposes to modify a part or any proposal made in the final Development Plan. The intention is clearly to follow the procedure prescribed therein where the proposed change involves a change in user into another user. It does not appear to be an intention of the Legislature to make it mandatory for Planning Authority to follow the said procedure even where there is no specific reservation or land use, assigned to the land in question. Indeed, this is often the case where new townships are being developed and it would not be correct to say that in a 4 12.wp-2931-10.doc case where particular land use is being designated to the land for the first time, such designation amounts to a modification of a Development Plan. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to set aside the action of the CIDCO which appears to have been taken in a public interest to provide for a burial ground and crematorium for the Hindu, Muslim and Christian communities in the area. Admittedly, there is no ground in New Panvel in which the aforesaid communities can dispose of the dead bodies. In the result, we do not propose to disturb the allotment of the said lands for burial ground and crematorium for Hindu, Muslim and Christian communities. There is no merit in the petition. Rule is discharged. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.A.BOBDE, J. ] 5