1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7938 OF 2010 Suryakant Basappa Phalmari .. Petitioner V/s The Municipal Corporation of City of Solapur & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sanjay Thokade i/by Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 6th July, 2011. P.C.: 1. In the original development plan land of the petitioner was reserved for extension of market. Draft development plan was published in the year 1999. Objections were called to that draft development plan. In the draft development plan the land was again shown as reserved for extension of market. Petitioner admittedly did not raise any objection. Corporation submitted proposal to the State Government. 2. It appears that the State Government suggested substantial modification in the draft development plan. Therefore, in relation to that substantial modification, again the objections were called. 2 In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner filed writ petition No.4521 of 2003 in this Court claiming that because he had given purchase notice and the Corporation has not purchased the land, the land is released from reservation. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 5.3.2004 as the writ petition was withdrawn. This Court however observed that in case the petitioner raises any objection, the Corporation may consider it. It appears that the petitioner raised objection before the Corporation. Corporation also submitted its report to the State Government, but the State Government did not consider that report and has continued the reservation. Perusal of the provisions of Section 31 shows that once objections are received by the Planning Authority to the draft development plan, the draft development plan is submitted to the State Government. State Government therefore is not obliged to either call for the objection or to consider any objection. The only thing the State Government has to do is to consult the Director of Town Planning and to finalise the plan. State Government thus finalised the draft development plan. With the result the land of the petitioner continues to be shown as reserved for extension of market. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Corporation has passed three resolutions that it does not want the land, and therefore, reservation of land in the development plan for extension of market is illegal. 4. The objection raised or any suggestion made by the Corporation is not binding on the State Government. The power of the State Government to finalise the development plan is unfettered. The only fetter on the power is to consult the Director of Town Planning. In our opinion, therefore, the remedy of the petitioner was either to challenge inclusion of land for the same purpose in the draft development plan or to raise objection to the draft development plan which showed that the land continues to be reserved for extension of market. Petitioner not having done that when the opportunity was given to him, cannot now challenge reservation of his land for extension of market. Petition is rejected. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)