: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2006 Karunakar M. Shetty ...Petitioner. Karunakar M. Shetty ...Petitioner. Karunakar M. Shetty ...Petitioner. V/s. V/s. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.M.S.Karnik h/for Mr.P.M.Pradhan for the Petitioner. Mr.M.S.Karnik h/for Mr.P.M.Pradhan for the Petitioner. Mr.M.S.Karnik h/for Mr.P.M.Pradhan for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.P.Mathur, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs.M.P.Mathur, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs.M.P.Mathur, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 30th November, 2006. DATE : 30th November, 2006. DATE : 30th November, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be the owner and proprietor of The petitioner claims to be the owner and proprietor of The petitioner claims to be the owner and proprietor of the Hotel namely, "Preeti Hotel" located on a plot of the Hotel namely, "Preeti Hotel" located on a plot of the Hotel namely, "Preeti Hotel" located on a plot of Survey No.3361/3362 on Lokmanya Tilak Nagar near Survey No.3361/3362 on Lokmanya Tilak Nagar near Survey No.3361/3362 on Lokmanya Tilak Nagar near Ambernath Railway Station and the area occupied by the Ambernath Railway Station and the area occupied by the Ambernath Railway Station and the area occupied by the said hotel is 145 Sq.ft. The petitioner admits that the said hotel is 145 Sq.ft. The petitioner admits that the said hotel is 145 Sq.ft. The petitioner admits that the said land belongs to the Government and he had initially said land belongs to the Government and he had initially said land belongs to the Government and he had initially constructed unauthorised structure but the same was constructed unauthorised structure but the same was constructed unauthorised structure but the same was regularised on certain terms and conditions by the order regularised on certain terms and conditions by the order regularised on certain terms and conditions by the order dated 12-5-97. He claims that he has been running the dated 12-5-97. He claims that he has been running the dated 12-5-97. He claims that he has been running the said business from 1968 and on the basis of licences said business from 1968 and on the basis of licences said business from 1968 and on the basis of licences issued by the municipal authorities. He challenges a issued by the municipal authorities. He challenges a issued by the municipal authorities. He challenges a Notification published in the Gazette dated 25-7-05 Notification published in the Gazette dated 25-7-05 Notification published in the Gazette dated 25-7-05 issued by the State Government under the Maharashtra issued by the State Government under the Maharashtra issued by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 whereby the said Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 whereby the said Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 whereby the said : 2 : plot of land adjacent to the hotel has been reserved for plot of land adjacent to the hotel has been reserved for plot of land adjacent to the hotel has been reserved for public purposes. He claims that before this Gazette public purposes. He claims that before this Gazette public purposes. He claims that before this Gazette Notification was issued, he objected to the Draft Notification was issued, he objected to the Draft Notification was issued, he objected to the Draft Development Plan but the same was not taken into Development Plan but the same was not taken into Development Plan but the same was not taken into consideration and he was not heard. consideration and he was not heard. consideration and he was not heard. 2. Shri Ramesh Sakharam Rathod, Town Planner from 2. Shri Ramesh Sakharam Rathod, Town Planner from 2. Shri Ramesh Sakharam Rathod, Town Planner from the office of the Assistant Director of Town Planning at the office of the Assistant Director of Town Planning at the office of the Assistant Director of Town Planning at Collectorate Thane has filed an affidavit and has stated Collectorate Thane has filed an affidavit and has stated Collectorate Thane has filed an affidavit and has stated that the subject plot is a part of the Mumbai that the subject plot is a part of the Mumbai that the subject plot is a part of the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority which has Metropolitan Regional Development Authority which has Metropolitan Regional Development Authority which has published a Draft Development Plan under Section 26(1) published a Draft Development Plan under Section 26(1) published a Draft Development Plan under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act on 10-5-01 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act on 10-5-01 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act on 10-5-01 thereby inviting suggestions/objections over the said thereby inviting suggestions/objections over the said thereby inviting suggestions/objections over the said Development Plan for the areas of Ambernath, Kulgaon, Development Plan for the areas of Ambernath, Kulgaon, Development Plan for the areas of Ambernath, Kulgaon, Badlapur and the surrounding areas. By an order dated Badlapur and the surrounding areas. By an order dated Badlapur and the surrounding areas. By an order dated 29-9-01, the Government has extended prescribed period 29-9-01, the Government has extended prescribed period 29-9-01, the Government has extended prescribed period of 60 days by additional 30 days, i.e., upto 8-8-01. of 60 days by additional 30 days, i.e., upto 8-8-01. of 60 days by additional 30 days, i.e., upto 8-8-01. Petitioner did not file any objections before 8-8-01. Petitioner did not file any objections before 8-8-01. Petitioner did not file any objections before 8-8-01. The Planning Committee after taking into consideration The Planning Committee after taking into consideration The Planning Committee after taking into consideration suggestions and objections of the members of the public suggestions and objections of the members of the public suggestions and objections of the members of the public, submitted a report to the planning authority and submitted a report to the planning authority and submitted a report to the planning authority and thereafter, a decision was taken to submit the same to thereafter, a decision was taken to submit the same to thereafter, a decision was taken to submit the same to the Government under Section 30 of the Act the Government under Section 30 of the Act the Government under Section 30 of the Act. On 20-2-04 On 20-2-04 On 20-2-04 the plan was published for the perusal of the public and the plan was published for the perusal of the public and the plan was published for the perusal of the public and : 3 : it is thereafter that the petitioner filed his it is thereafter that the petitioner filed his it is thereafter that the petitioner filed his objections on 19-3-04. There is no provision in the objections on 19-3-04. There is no provision in the objections on 19-3-04. There is no provision in the scheme of Section 28(4) for inviting objections once scheme of Section 28(4) for inviting objections once scheme of Section 28(4) for inviting objections once Draft Development Plan was submitted to the State Draft Development Plan was submitted to the State Draft Development Plan was submitted to the State Government and now the Government has finally sanctioned Government and now the Government has finally sanctioned Government and now the Government has finally sanctioned the said plan on 25-7-05 under Section 31(1) of the the said plan on 25-7-05 under Section 31(1) of the the said plan on 25-7-05 under Section 31(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act. Under these circumstances, the M.R.T.P. Act. Under these circumstances, the M.R.T.P. Act. Under these circumstances, the petitioner’s challenge to the Development Plan approved petitioner’s challenge to the Development Plan approved petitioner’s challenge to the Development Plan approved by the State Government cannot be entertained. by the State Government cannot be entertained. by the State Government cannot be entertained. 3. Petition is hereby rejected summarily. 3. Petition is hereby rejected summarily. 3. Petition is hereby rejected summarily. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)