2.wp.202-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.202 OF 2009 Shri Dhondiram Bhau Chougule. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 3 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Tejpal S. Ingale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for the respondent ­ State. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:­ 1. In the Development Plan of Sangli town, the land of the petitioner was shown in the agricultural zone. The State Government in the year, 2003, probably at the behest of the petitioner, made an order under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 dated 5.11.2003 directing the Municipal Corporation to include the land of the petitioner in the residential zone. The 2.wp.202-09 2 petitioner has filed this Petition for issuing direction to the State Government to take further steps pursuant to the order dated 5.11.2003 or direction to the Corporation to do the same in terms of Section 37. 2. The State Government has filed a reply. The case of the State Government is that the land of the petitioner was within the limits of Sangli Municipal Council when the development plan of Sangli was prepared. At that time, the land was shown for agricultural purpose. Then the limits of Sangli Municipal Council were extended and the land was included within the limits of Municipal Council. In 1998 by amalgamation of three Municipal Councils, a Municipal Corporation was formed. Though the State Government issued direction in the year, 2003 for minor modification of the plan under Section 37, the new Corporation prepared the draft development plan and submitted it to the State Government and the State Government has published that draft development plan on 4.3.2005. In the draft development plan also the land of the petitioner is shown for residential purposes. The State Government is 2.wp.202-09 3 considering finalization of the draft development plan published in the year, 2005. 3. In our opinion, in view of the stand taken by the State Government, direction sought by the petitioner cannot be given. If the petitioner was keen on further action being taken pursuant to the order dated 5.11.2003, he should have approached this Court immediately when the planning authority did not, pursuant to the order of the State Government, take steps. The petitioner waited till the Corporation submitted the draft development plan and the State Government undertakes to finalization of the draft development plan. 4. In our opinion, moving of this Court by the petitioner in the year, 2009 after the draft development was submitted by the Corporation disentitles him to get writ from this Court directing the State Government to pursue the order for minor modification of the development plan, when the State Government presently is considering finalization of the draft development plan which will serve the petitioner's purpose, as even the draft development plan, the land is 2.wp.202-09 4 shown as residential. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in this Petition. Writ Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)