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

3. Facts in short are, that in the year 1966 the suit lands came under a green zone. On 01.06.1983, the Town Planning Scheme for Pune was sanctioned under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (herinafter referred to as `MRTP Act). On 18.09.1982, the said land was reserved for the purpose of parking in the draft Development Plan. The objections were invited in respect of the reservation for parking sometime in the year 1983. The respondents herein submitted their objections and pointed out that an area has already been surrendered for the purpose of Dhobhi Ghat which was lying unutilized and suggested that the said land could be used for parking purpose.4. On 05.01.1987, the development plan was sanctioned by the State Government under Section 31 of the MRTP Act, as a result thereof, the land in question was shown as "reserved for a bus depot" instead of "parking".5. In a similar matter, the amended provision came up before the Bombay High Court in the case of "Bombay Environmental Action Group v. The State of Maharashtra", 1990 M.L.J. 139 in which concept of substantial change came up for consideration on 05.01.1987 when the plan had been timely sanctioned under provisions of MRTP Act.6. There was no requirement of law to invite objections and suggestions as to change of land for public purpose from "Parking" to "Bus depot" as it could not have been treated as a case of substantial change is the ground urged by the appellant.7. As the Notification was relating to Scheme under MRTP Act Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 06.04.1992 read with Section 126 of the MRTP Act for the purpose of acquisition of the land for the bus depot.8. In 1993 two Writ Petitions were filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 respectively challenging the acquisition proceedings. The High Court, vide an interim order, allowed the acquisition proceedings to proceed, but declaration of the award was restrained.9. Ultimately, the High Court by impugned order dated 11.04.2005/03.05.2005 has set aside the Government Notification dated 05.01.1987 insofar as it seeks to reserve the land for "Bus Depot", by observing, that the modifications having been effected without inviting objections or suggestions in the official Gazette as required by the 2nd Proviso to Section 31 of the Act was illegal. Aggrieved thereby, Municipal Corporation has come up in appeal before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
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.