1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5646 OF 2009 Bhagyalaxmi Rolling Mill Private Limtied .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, AGP for State. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4.. ===== CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K. K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 4 th AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard. 2 The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- C To direct the respondents to delete the land bearing Gut No. 29, 30 and 36 of village Daregon of Jalna District Jalna from notification issued by the Government on dated 18 th June 2008 and for that 2 purpose issue necessary, writ, order or directions in the nature. D To grant stay to the execution, implementation and operation of the notification dated 18 th June 2008 to the extent of land beraing Gat no. 29, 30 and 36 of village Daregaon Jalna, Dist. Jalna and for that purpose issue necessry orders. E To grant injunction restraining the respondents from their servants and agents from acquiring the land bearing Gat no. 29, 30 and 36 of villae Daregaon, pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition. 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that objections at the stage of issuance of notification under section 23 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 are required to be taken into consideration as petitioner had specifically raised objections in respect of inclusion of gat nos. 30, 29 and 36 in which area the petitioner is running his factory which is a mega project namely Bhagyalaxmi Rolling Mill. It was submitted that the objections to be invited and considered at latter point of time by the authority concerned, would not allow the petitioner to raise the issue in respect of inclusion of area or the boundary of the area which would be developed by the special planning authority consequent to the 3 notification issued under section 40 of the Act of 1966. Therefore, to the extent of area which is occupied by the petitioner, the planning authority or the State shall be directed to delete the subject area and proceed further to take steps in accordance with the scheme. Learned counsel submits that the notification under section 40 of the Act is bad for violation of law relating to Pollution Control Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, has placed on record copy of notification issued under section 23 of the Act of 1966, which the counsel prays to be taken on record. Copy is taken on record. 3 Respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed affidavit in reply. Learned counsel Mr. A.S. Bajaj appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the provisions of sections 21 to 28 and section 40 of the act will have to be considered in the light of the scheme. At present, notification is issued by the State Government on 18-6-2008 under section 40 of the Act of 1966. The City and Industrial Development Corporation under said notification would prepare its proposal to 4 develop the land within the notified area and submit for approval as contemplated under section 115 of the Act. Learned counsel submits that the prayer made by the petitioner to delete gut nos. 29 and 30 from the schedule of this notification cannot be considered at this stage. It was further submitted that the State Government had notified area or part of the area which was part of development plan prepared by the Municipal Council, Jalna. The subject area was shown in the said plan as ‘green zone’ i.e. ‘no development zone’. Learned counsel therefore submits that steps would be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1966 and at appropriate stage, the petitioner will be entitled to raise objections and those objections would be accordingly considered under the scheme of the act. 4 Learned AGP Shri Dighe places reliance on his affidavit in reply and submits that the development plan of Jalna was sanctioned on 4-4-1989 which came into force by 25-5-1989 and the said sanctioned development plan i.e. part area of gat no. 30 (survey no. 55) was 5 included in the industrial zone and remaining land of the said gat number and gat no. 29 and 36 ( i.e. survey no. 9, 10 and 15) were included in agricultural zone. The deponent contends in paragraph no. 4 of the affidavit in reply that it was mentioned that N.A. permission for said land i.e. gat no. 30 was granted but the same has not been recommended by the Town Planner, Jalna. In paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit in reply, the deponent contends that almost all the notified area is presently vacant and is nearer to developed area and hence the Government had issued notification dt. 18-6-2008 for appointing CIDCO as special planning authority. 5 We have considered the submissions and perused provisions of the Act of 1966. Considering the material placed before this court at this stage and in view of the provisions of the Act of 1966, we are of the view that no interference is call for in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by granting prayers made by the petitioner in the present petition. Respondents had already submitted that steps in accordance with the provisions of 6 the Act of 1966 would be taken and the petitioner would be entitled to raise objections at appropriate stage which would be dealt with in accordance with law. In the light of the fact that the State has issued notification on 18-6-2008 constituting CIDCO as special planning authority, appropriate steps in accordance with law need to be taken by the respondent authority. 6 Considering the scheme of the act and the prayers made in the present petition, we find that no interference is called for at this stage. Petition therefore stands rejected. 7 In view of dismissal of the petition, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( K. K. TATED, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) dyb/office/wp5646.09.odt