1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1467 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7456 OF 2005 Pune Municipal Corporation ..Applicant Vs. Gajanan Narayan Mulik & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1468 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4100 OF 2006 Pune Municipal Corporation ..Applicant Vs. Tukaram Sopan Mulik ..Respondent Mr. R S Khadapkar for the Applicant/Original Respondent No.2. Shri S.M.Gorwadkar for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/Original Petitioners. Shri V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent Nos.5 to 8/Original Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5. Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 2nd July, 2010 P.C. 1. Leave to correct the prayer clause (a) in as much as, the date mentioned in the said prayer 19-5-2008 to be corrected as 17-5-2008. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Though the above Civil Applications are on board, by the consent of the parties, the Petitions are also taken up for final hearing. 2 2. By the above Civil Applications, the Applicant who is the original Respondent No.2 in the above Writ Petitions, seeks the following relief: “(a) Grant the liberty to the Applicant to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit land viz part of Survey No.11 and part of Survey No.13 situated at Vadgaon Shei, Pune, as per the Development Plan sanctioned on 17-5-2008 u/s 31 under the MRTP Act by following procedure prescribed under the law. (b) any further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court be deemed fit in nature of this case.” 3. The said relief is sought on the ground that by Notification dated 17-5-2008, the State Government has sanctioned the Final Development Plan for part of the area which is within the territorial limits of the Pune Municipal Corporation and which covers the lands involved in the above Petitions. The Operative Part of the said notification is relevant and is reproduced herein under :- (a) Accords sanction to the said Development Plan in part to proposals of the D.P. Roads as submitted under Section 30 to the Govt. (b) Accords sanction to the said Development Plan in part to the proposals of Reservations for water supply and sewerage purposes as submitted u/s 30 to Govt. The list of reservations sanctioned is attached herewith as Schedule `A’ (c) The said Development Plan sanctioned in part shall came into force with effect from 1st July 2008. 3 4. The above Petitions were filed challenging the Notification dated 1-10-2005 issued under Section 126(1),(2) & (4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 read with Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, in respect of Survey No.11 & 13 of Vadgaon Sheri, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, of the ownership of the respective Petitioners. By the said Notification, the lands in question were sought to be acquired for the proposed road essentially as per the Regional Plan of the area. It was the case of the Petitioners that in view of the variance in the alignment of the concerned road between the Draft Development Plan, which was in force at the said time and the sanctioned final Regional Plan of the area, the Respondent No.2 Corporation, should keep the acquisition proposal in respect of Survey Nos. 11 and 13 in abeyance till the alignment of the said road was finalized in the Development Plan at the stage of Govt. Sanction. The above Petitions were admitted and an interim order dated 10-7-2006 came to be passed therein. A reading of the said interim order discloses that the Court had granted the liberty to the Corporation to go back to the General Body for a decision on the suggestions of the State Government vis-a-vis the variance in alignment in the Draft Development Plan and the Regional Plan. 5. During the pendency of the above Petitions, the Draft Development Plan, which was submitted to the State Government for approval, has been approved by the State Government under Section 31 of the MRTP Act, 1966 and 4 the Notification to the said effect has been issued by the State Government on 17-5-2008 a reference to which has already been made herein above. 6. It is contended on behalf of the original Petitioners i.e. Respondent No.1 herein that the variance in the alignment still continue and, therefore, the cause of action in the Petitions still survives. As mentioned herein above in respect of the said variance, the State Government had made some suggestions in the light of which this Court had permitted the authorities of the Municipal Corporation to go back to the General Body of the Corporation and obtain a decision on the suggestions of the State Government. In the light of the fact that the State Government itself has now sanctioned the said Draft Development Plan under Section 31, in our view the said course of action now need not be followed. In any event the principal grievance of the Petitioners in both the above Petitions was that the said acquisition proposal should be kept in abeyance till the alignment of the road is finalized in the Development Plan at the stage of Govt. sanction. The Draft Development Plan having been now sanctioned by the State Government, the grievance of the original Petitioners on the above score therefore does not survive. 7. By the above Civil Applications, the Applicant is merely seeking to initiate the acquisition proceeding in terms of the sanctioned Development Plan which has been brought into force vide Notification dated 17-5-2008. In our 5 view, in the light of the sanction of the Draft Development Plan, the Petitions in fact do not survive. It is also submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant (Respondent No.2 Corporation) that the Applicant/ Respondent No.2 has given up the acquisition initiated as per the Notification dated 1-10-2005 which is impugned in the above Petitions, and would institute fresh acquisition proposal in terms of the final Development Plan now brought into force. The statement is accepted. In the light of the aforesaid the very basis or foundation of the Petitions being based on the Draft Development Plan ceases to exist and, therefore, the Petitions do not survive and it would therefore be open for the Petitioners to file fresh Petitions, if so advised, to impugn the sanctioned Final Development Plan and the Notification dated 17-5-2008, or the acquisition of land commenced pursuant thereto on such grounds as are available to them in law. We do not express any opinion as regards the merits of such a challenge. 8. In so far as the reliefs sought in the Civil Applications are concerned, in view of the Final Development Plan having come into force the Respondent No.2 is required to be permitted to implement it, as the said Final Development Plan cannot be kept in cold storage. In so far as the acquisition of the lands is concerned, we need to only observe that acquisition proceedings, if any, to be initiated by the Applicant / Respondent No.2 would proceed only in accordance with law and if the permission of the General Body of the Respondent No.2 is required, the same may also be obtained by the authorities of the Corporation. For 6 the reasons mentioned above, both the above Writ Petitions and Civil Applications to stand disposed of. In so far as the Writ Petitions are concerned, Rule to stand discharged in both the Petitions, with liberty to the Petitioners as granted above. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)