-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9736 OF 2009 Mahadev Bapurao Sarnaik ... Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. A.M. Savagave, instructed by Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: APRIL 26, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondents to include the open space in the revised lay out sanctioned by respondent No.3 in the residential zone in respect of R.S. No. 546, E Ward, Kolhapur. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner prepared a lay out plan for the said purpose regarding the aforesaid land in question and submitted the same to the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. Initially the same was submitted at the time when there was a Municipal Council for the city of Kolhapur. On 17th October, 1965, the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council passed a resolution and sanctioned the lay out submitted by the Petitioner and subsequently the Municipal Council also issued order sanctioning the said lay out. -2- 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the same, petitioner fully developed the property and sold the flats to individual flat purchasers. It is the say of the petitioner that the open space is wrongly shown in green colour instead of yellow colour in the development plan prepared by the Corporation. According to the petitioner, it is an obvious mistake and the Corporation should correct such mistake and in fact the Corporation was also directed by the Director of Town Planning to correct the said mistake and by correcting the said mistake, the development plan is not going to be modified and, therefore, it may not be necessary to take action under Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1966. The petitioner has also filed affidavit of adjoining plot holders with their consent letters. 3. In our view, the issue involved in the matter is required to be examined by the State Government, after considering the say of the Director of Town Planning as well as the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and it is pointed out that the Director of Town Planning has already recommended for such correction. In our view, it is advisable, if appropriate decision is taken by the Government, after hearing the concerned parties including the petitioner as well as the plot holders who are holding plots in R.S. No. 546. The State Government is accordingly directed to take appropriate decision in connection with the subject matter, latest by 31st August, 2010. The Secretary, Urban -3- Development Department is accordingly directed to decide the issue involved in this matter after hearing the concerned parties, as stated above, by 31st August, 2010. The learned AGP to forward a copy of this order as well as copy of the petition to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, so that he may be apprised of the facts of the case. The concerned Secretary may also consider as to whether any individual notices are required to be given to the plot holders who are holding the plots in R.S. No. 546 or pubic notice in the newspaper having wide circulation in the area or not. After hearing all the plot holders, whatever may be the decision, the same may also be communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner may initially appear before the Secretary on 5th May, 2010 and thereafter the concerned Secretary may proceed in accordance with law by giving suitable dates to the plot holders. It is clarified that the concerned Secretary may decide only the issue involved in the petition which we have referred to hereinabove. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.