1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.610 OF 2009 Smt. Kamal w/o Ganpatrao Kamble, R/o-MIDC Corner, Barsi Road, Latur, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The District Collector, Latur, District-Latur, 3) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-division, Latur, 4) The Town Planning Officer, Latur, District-Latur, 5) Municipal Council, Latur, Through Chief Officer. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.Pradeep Deshmukh Advocate i/b. Shri. A.R. Mohane Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri.V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner seeks direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to utilize his land for non agricultural purpose situated in Gut No.45 (Survey No.22) at village Baswantpur, Taluka and District- Latur. The learned counsel Shri. Pradeep Deshmukh submits that in the year 2002 the proposal was forwarded by the Municipal Council Latur for converting this relevant zone from industrial to residential zone. Some of the land owners from the same Gut number could get their land converted for non agricultural use, according to the counsel. The Petitioner has remained unsuccessful through out in getting conversion of land to its non agricultural use. 3 3. Consequent to the notices issued, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed affidavit in reply and thereafter the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 filed affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in Para 8 and 9 the deponent contends that: "(8) With reference to para No.5 and 6 of the Writ Petition I say that, as submitted in reply to the para no.4 by communicating the comments of the Respondent no.4 to the Petitioner, the application submitted by the Petitioner to this office was disposed off and the file was closed. Hence the contents of this para regarding the averments about the deemed provisions of N.A. permission and similar other contents are denied. (9) It is further submitted that, the senior Planner and 4 Town Planning Officer (Latur Fringe Area) Latur vide his office letter dated 25.5.2010 brought to the notice of Respondent No.3 that, as per draft Development of the Latur Fringe Area (LFA) published by the CIDCO on 22.4.2010 the Gat No.45 of village Baswantpur (Suit land) comes under High Intensity Development Zone (Level-1) and is partly reserved for Primary School, Parking and comes under widening of the road. Further he has communicated that, as per the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 the land owner can file his suggestion or objections to the Planning Authority within 60 days from the date of draft notification. The Petitioner can avail this opportunity and file his suggestion or claims and objections to the CIDCO authority. The copy of the said letter dated 25.5.2010 is annexed herewith and marked at 5 EXHIBIT-R-3." 4. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 dated 12th July, 2010, it is contended in Para 6 that: "(6) I say that the Petitioner complied with the query by submitting re- measurement map of Gat No. 45/Survey No.22. After verification of re-measurement plan and Development Plan of Latur, it revealed that Applicant's land is concluded in "Excluded part" of the Deponent (E.P. No.07). I say that, earlier the said land was included in Industrial Zone as per Development Plan submitted to Government for sanction. But the Government while sanctioning the Development Plan, the said land modification as E.P. No.7. The legal formalities to that effect viz. inviting 6 suggestions and objections, hearings to the objectors and submission of the report by the officer appointed U/s. 31(2) of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, were completed but the decision on E.P. 07 is not yet finalized by the Government. Therefore, considering the provisions in Section 46 of the Act, the permission for residential use cannot be granted till E.P. 07 (Excluded Part-07) is sanctioned by the Government. Accordingly, Town Planner, Latur has communicated his remarks vide letter No.1867 dated 31.7.2003 to Sub Divisional Officer, Latur. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-R-2 is the copy of letter dated 31.7.2003." 5. The grievance of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the State Authorities ought to have diligently taken decision on the proposal 7 forwarded by the Municipal Council, Latur for conversion of the user of the land from industrial to residential. Due to inaction of the Authorities, the common citizen like the Petitioner had to suffer, who could not utilize the land owned by him, in accordance with his choice. 6. Shri. Dighe, the learned A.G.P. has placed reliance on the affidavit reply filed by the Respondent Authorities. On instructions, the learned A.G.P. submits that Sub-Divisional Officer, Latur has addressed a communication dated 1st June, 2010 to the Petitioner, by giving reference to the proceeding of this Petition, he observed that the subject land is part of High Intensity Development Zone (level-I). Reference to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 has been made. 7. Learned counsel Shri. Deshmukh submits that he has submitted objections on 5th June, 2010 8 and there has been no communication to the Petitioner on the objections raised. 8. Learned A.G.P. submits that the Authorities would act in accordance with the provisions of the law and in consonance with the stand adopted in the affidavit in reply. 9. In the light of the replies filed and in the facts of the case, no interference in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, at this stage, is called for. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp610.09