Case: Pune Municipal Corporation &amp; Another Vs. Motibagh Co-Operative Housing Society Limited &amp; Others

a notice in the Official Gazette and also in not less than two local newspapers inviting objections and suggestions from any person in respect of the proposed modifications within a period of one month, from the date of such notice.][Provided also that, if the Government does not publish its decision by notification in the Official Gazette, regarding sanctioning the draft Development plan submitted to it, for the whole area, or separately for any part thereof, either without modification, or subject to such modifications as it may consider proper, or return the draft Development plan to the Planning Authority, or as the case may be, the said officer for modifying the plan as it may direct or refuse to accord sanction and direct the Planning Authority or the said Officer to prepare a fresh Development plan, within the period under this section, such draft Development plan shall be deemed to have been sanctioned as submitted to the Government under Section 30, on the date immediately following the date of expiry of the period under this section:Provided also that, where any modification submitted by the Planning Authority or, as the case may be, the said Officer, under Section 30 is of substantial nature with respect to the draft Development plan published under section 26, such modification shall not be deemed to have been sanctioned and the Government shall publish a notice regarding such modifications of substantial nature and the provisions relating to publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and two local newspapers for obtaining suggestions and objections as stipulated in the second proviso, shall apply.](2) The State Government may appoint an officer of rank not below that of a [Group A officer] and direct him to hear any such person in respect of such objections and suggestions and submit his report thereon to the State Government [within one year from the date of publication of notice under second proviso to sub-section (1)](3) The State Government shall before according sanction to the draft Development plan take into consideration such objections and suggestions and the report of the officer.[Provided that, the time-limits as provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply for according sanction to the modifications published under sub-section (1):Provided further that, the Government shall take final decision regarding such modifications within one year from the date of receipt of the report from the officer appointed under sub-section (2).](4) The State Government shall fix in the notification under sub-section (1) a date not earlier than one month from its publication on which the final Development plan shall come into operation.[(4A) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate all the powers and functions under this section to the Director of Town Planning in such cases and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification.](5) If a Development plan contains any proposal for the designation of any land for a purpose specified in clauses (b) and (c) of section 22, and if such land does not vest in the Planning Authority, the State Government shall not include that in the Development Plan, unless it is satisfied that the Planning Authority will be able to acquire such land by private agreement or compulsory acquisition not later than ten years from the date on which the Development plan comes into operation.(6) A Development plan which has come into operation shall be called the "final Development plan"and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be binding on the Planning Authority."14. A reading of Section 31 of the MRTP Act clearly reveals that the Government was required to invite objections only in case the change in the public purpose is a substantial one and not otherwise. The State Government while sanctioning the Development Plan reserved the suit lands for Bus Depot instead of Parking. In our considered view, the change of public purpose from Parking to Bus Depot was not a substantial change and therefore there was no need to invite fresh objections / suggestions as directed by the High Court.15. Once declaration under Section 6 had been issued for the acquisition of the land for Bus Depot, it was supposed to be taken to the logical conclusion. The High Court has also held in "Bombay Environmental Action Group v. The State of Maharashtra", 1990 M.L.J. (Supra) that only in case of substantial change in the nature of public purpose, fresh objections/suggestions were required to be invited and not otherwise. As the change of public purpose in the final Sanctioned Plan made from Parking to Bus Depot was not a substantial change, it was not incumbent upon the appellants to invite fresh objections.16. As to the submission raised by learned senior counsel for the respondent regarding framing of the new scheme, since the land stands reserved for bus depot under New Scheme also that further justify our conclusion that land was required to be notified for the public purpose of Bus Depot, the, High Court erred in law in holding otherwise. Some more options have been given to the Planning Authority and the appropriate authority under New Scheme would also not come to rescue of respondents as the New Scheme is not applicable to the respondents. As the new notified Scheme cannot be said to be applicable to the acquisition which has been initiated in 1987.17. It was further submitted by learned Senior counsel that since there was restraint Order on the passing of the award as such land has not so far vested absolutely in Corporation and the option under the new scheme can be exercised. We are of the considered view that since order of the High court is illegal and provisions of new scheme are not applicable and due to interim stay, award could not be passed would not come to the rescue of the respondent to avail the benefit of the new scheme. We unhesitatingly rejects the submissions to avail benefits under New Scheme raised by the respondents to reopen the issue.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the High Court cannot be allowed to sustain. Later on Section 22A in the MRTP Act was inserted by Maharashtra Act No.10 of 2011 dated 05.04.2011 so as to provide what are modifications of "substantial nature". Section 22 cannot be said to be applicable.A reading of Section 31 of the MRTP Act clearly reveals that the Government was required to invite objections only in case the change in the public purpose is a substantial one and not otherwise. The State Government while sanctioning the Development Plan reserved the suit lands for Bus Depot instead of Parking. In our considered view, the change of public purpose from Parking to Bus Depot was not a substantial change and therefore there was no need to invite fresh objections / suggestions as directed by the High Court.15. Once declaration under Section 6 had been issued for the acquisition of the land for Bus Depot, it was supposed to be taken to the logical conclusion. The High Court has also held in "Bombay Environmental Action Group v. The State of Maharashtra", 1990 M.L.J. (Supra) that only in case of substantial change in the nature of public purpose, fresh objections/suggestions were required to be invited and not otherwise. As the change of public purpose in the final Sanctioned Plan made from Parking to Bus Depot was not a substantial change, it was not incumbent upon the appellants to invite fresh objections.16. As to the submission raised by learned senior counsel for the respondent regarding framing of the new scheme, since the land stands reserved for bus depot under New Scheme also that further justify our conclusion that land was required to be notified for the public purpose of Bus Depot, the, High Court erred in law in holding otherwise. Some more options have been given to the Planning Authority and the appropriate authority under New Scheme would also not come to rescue of respondents as the New Scheme is not applicable to the respondents. As the new notified Scheme cannot be said to be applicable to the acquisition which has been initiated inare of the considered view that since order of the High court is illegal and provisions of new scheme are not applicable and due to interim stay, award could not be passed would not come to the rescue of the respondent to avail the benefit of the new scheme. We unhesitatingly rejects the submissions to avail benefits under New Scheme raised by the respondents to reopen the issue.