1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2809 OF 2009 Lokmanya Bahuvidh Vikas Mandal, Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad, Through President, Sou. Lata Shriniwas Dalal, R/o-Parth Complex, Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through- Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Cabinet Minister, Urban Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 3) The Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune, 4) The Assistant Director of Town Planning, Aurangabad, 5) The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.A.S. Bajaj Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri.S.N. Pagare Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner seeks direction to quash and set aside the order of the Hon'ble Chief Minister rejecting the proposal submitted by Assistant Director of Town Planning under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the M.R.T.P. Act") for modification of Development Plan, and directions for quashing and setting aside the communication/notification made to that effect dated 22nd April 2008, along with other reliefs. 3 3. The Petitioner claims to be registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The aims and objects of the Petitioner society is to impart education to the poor children and also to provide education facilities to women and to make available employment opportunities and to provide residential facilities to the girl students and working women. In the year 1999 the request of the Petitioner was considered by the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and a decision was taken to allot 600 sq. meter Nalla portion. Accordingly proposal was forwarded to the State Government for approval and to seek modification of the development plan as contemplated under Section 37 of the M.R.T.P. Act. In the year 2002, revised development plan was sanctioned by Government with effect from 1st October, 2002. The Petitioner contends that the Government formed an opinion that the subject land be deleted from the existing use of Nalla and be converted to residential use. 4 In the year 2004, the Government vide its order dated 8th July, 2004 directed the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation to submit a proposal of minor modification by publishing notice. Accordingly, in the year 2006 the notice was published in the Government Gazette. In the year 2007, the proposal was again placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who rejected the proposal for modification without assigning any reasons. In pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the notification dated 22nd April, 2008 was published notifying that the proposal for modification was rejected. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Respondent No. 5 have filed affidavit in reply. We have perused the same. In the Notification dated 22nd April, 2008 issued by Urban Development Department (Exhibit J), it is mentioned that after making necessary inquiries and after consulting the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune the Government of Maharashtra is of the opinion 5 that the Modification Proposal regarding deletion of the said Land from existing Nalla should not be sanctioned. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 37(2) of the M.R.T.P. Act the Government refused to sanction the Modification Proposal regarding deletion of the said land from existing Nalla. 5. During the course of hearing of the Petition, it was brought to the notice of the Court that there are around 21 Nallas in the city. Aurangabad is a fast developing city. The nodal agency i.e. Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran prepared a detail project report for up-gradation of Sewerage System and Nalla Training Project. On behalf of the Respondent Corporation, reference is made to Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2010 and communication dated 24th February, 2010 made by Member Secretary of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran addressed to the Chief Secretary, Water Supply Department, Government of Maharashtra. 6 6. From the facts of the case and the replies filed, we are not inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Minister and to direct modifications in the development plan as desired by the Petitioner. The explanations given by the Respondents are convincing one. 7. We find that this Petition had provided an occasion to look into the policy in respect of Nalla Project adopted by the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. We observe that the Corporation shall make every effort to protect the Nallas in the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation area. The responsible Authorities shall take precaution that the said Nalla properties are not encroached upon and if they find such encroachment, then stringent steps in accordance with law should be taken. 8. Learned counsel for Corporation submitted that Aurangabad Municipal Corporation has floated 7 tender for appointment of consultant to prepare detail project report for Nallas in accordance with the guidelines given by the Principal Secretary of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran. The proposal for appointment of such consultant is submitted with the Standing Committee, for approval and once the approval is granted by the Standing Committee, the project management consultant shall prepare detail report to be submitted to the State Government for their sanction and for allocation of funds. The Corporation had mentioned names of persons, institutions who were permitted to use part of the Nalla property. 9. We hope that the Corporation would pursue its efforts to protect and develop sewerage system and Nalla project for Aurangabad city effectively. 10. In the facts of the case, we do not notice any malafides or glaring irregularities or illegalities for allowing the Petition. The 8 Petition is rejected. If the Petitioner desires in future, the Petitioner may make a fresh representation in this regard, to the appropriate authorities. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp2809.09