1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No.5106 of 2007 (The New Amar Nagar Vikas Kruti Samiti, Nagpur .vs. State of Mah. & Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : 4.3.2008. Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv. for the Petitioner, Mr.Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent No.1 and 3 and Mr.S.K.Mishra, Adv. for the Respondent No.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order dt.28.9.2007 passed by the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust. Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for the Petitioner has contended that the grievance of the petitioner is that the lay-out plan of 2005 does not show public utility spaces which are shown in the sanctioned lay-out plan of 2006. It is further contended that since 2006 sanctioned plan of the concerned lay-out shows spaces reserved for public utility, recreation/open space, the respondent/Nagpur Improvement Trust gave sanction to the individual owners of the plots under the Gunthewari Act, in respect of the said plots which are located in these areas, which were reserved for public utility and shown the in 2006 sanctioned plan of concerned layout. It is further contended that, 2 for the spaces which are kept for public utility, the sanction could not have been granted to the individual plot owners by the NIT under the Gunthewari Act, however, the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust failed to consider this aspect. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust and recorded in the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Nagpur Improvement Trust, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and has contended that the petitioner is also owner of the plot which was in the unauthorised lay-out in question and was granted regularisation under the Gunthewari Act. It is further contended that, under the Gunthewari Act, the competent Authority is entitled to regularise the unauthorised lay-outs provided the plots are formed prior to 1.1.2001. It is further contended by the counsel for the Nagpur Improvement Trust that, in the instant case, the Trust has not regularised/sanctioned the entire lay-out at one stroke. On the other hand, the applications which are received by the competent Authority under the Gunthewari Act from the individual plot owners of the lay- out in question where the plots were transferred prior to 1.1.2001 were considered individually on their own merits as well as in view of the provisions of the Gunthewari Act and accordingly, the regularisation orders were passed in individual cases. It is further contended that the whole exercise is undertaken as per the provisions of the Gunthewari Act and therefore, the contentions canvassed by the 3 learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel further contended that the sanctioned plan of the lay-out shows open spaces etc., however, the land owner has sold that land prior to 1.1.2001 to the plot owners who had applied for regularisation under the Gunthewari Act and in absence of any prohibition to regularise such plots mentioned in the Gunthewari Act, the said plots are regularised under the provisions of Gunthewari Act. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust is sustainable in law. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel. Following facts are not in dispute : That under the provisions of the Gunthewari Act, the “Gunthewari development” means plots formed by unauthorisedly sub-dividing privately owned land, with buildings, if any, on such plots, including excess vacant act under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 not vested in the State Government, but excluding the land under encroachment. Similarly regularisation under the Gunthewari Act is possible only in respect of the plots formed and transferred prior to 1.1.2001. 4 In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that, in respect of the petitioner as well as other plot holders in the lay-out in question, plots were formed and transferred prior to 1.1.2001 and the applications were also submitted for regularisation by individual plot holders to the competent Authority under the Gunthewari Act. It is also not dispute that the land which is shown in the sanctioned plan of 2006 in respect of lay-out in question for public utility or re-creation was also divided into plots and transferred prior to 1.1.2001 and the plot holders accordingly submitted their applications for regularisation under the Gunthewari Act. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and considering the Scheme of regularisation under the Gunthewari Act, the conclusion arrived out by the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust, reflected in the impugned order cannot said to be bad in law. Hence, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj