Case: THE MAYOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. GOVIND BAJIRAO NAVPUTE AND ORS

3. Before its conversion to Municipal Corporation, there existed a Municipal Council for Aurangabad city and final development plan for Aurangabad Municipal Corporation area was published in the year 1975, and the same was revised from time to time. The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation came to be established vide Government Notification dated 3.12.1982 w.e.f. 8.12.1982. At the time of establishment of the Municipal Corporation in the year 1982, 18 villages were included in the Municipal limits, which is an additional area forming part of the Municipal Corporation. A development plan in respect of the additional area came to be published in the Official Gazette on 15.10.1991. At a later point of time, City Industrial Development Corporation Area (CIDCO Area) was also de- notified and as a result thereof an area admeasuring 209.88 hectares came to be included within the area of Municipal Corporation. The Declaration under Section 23 (1) read with Sections 34 and 38 of the MRTP Act came to be published in the Official Gazette, declaring intention to prepare revised development plan for an additional area i.e. de-notified area of CIDCO, and newly added Shivaji Nagar Area on 7.2.2013. On 05.02.2013, the Town Planning Officer came to be appointed for the purposes of preparation of development plan. After completing survey and preparation of existing land use map as contemplated under Section 25 of the MRTP Act, the planning authority, is required to prepare draft development plan and publish notice as contemplated under Section 26 of the MRTP Act, not later than two years from the date of notice published under Section 23 of the said Act. Such notice was published on 04.02.2016. As per the second proviso to Section 26, as applicable to the city of Aurangabad, the State Government is empowered to extend the time not exceeding 12 months, in aggregate to prepare and publish the draft development plan. Though the extendable period of 12 months lapsed by 6.2.2016, subsequently an application dated 18.3.2016, seeking extension of time was moved before the Competent Authority. On such application, time was extended in two spells for an aggregate period of 12 months.      4. The draft development plan, notified by the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad on 04.02.2016, was questioned, amongst others, in the writ petition bearing no.1981 of 2016 on several grounds. As several writ petitions were filed seeking similar relief, for the sake of brevity and convenience we refer to the facts arising out of W.P. No.1981 of 2016.      5. It was the case of the writ petitioners that the said plan was not prepared in accordance with provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; the said plan was not prepared and notified within the statutory period; the delegated authority has no jurisdiction to grant extension of time ex post facto; the said plan was tinkered by the Mayor and councillors of the corporation. It was the specific case in the writ petition that 361 public amenities prescribed in draft development proposals were deleted; about 500 hectares of land covered by forest and water bodies is converted to a no zone and the alignment of 22 roads were changed etc. The relief sought in the writ petition was opposed mainly on the ground that the development plan was at the stage of proposals and was incomplete and inchoate and has to undergo the process provided under Sections 28 and 31 of the MRTP Act. It is the case of the respondents in the writ petition that ultimate development plan is to be sanctioned by the Government under Section 31 of the MRTP Act.      6. The High Court while allowing the writ petition, in the impugned judgment, has held that the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act is mandatory and Section 21(4A) of the MRTP Act is applicable in respect of proceedings under Section 38 of the MRTP Act. The High Court has further held that the Director of Town Planning, as a delegated authority of the Government, did not have jurisdiction to extend the time after the expiry of period of one year, in addition to prescribed two years period. Further the High Court has noticed that about 114 reservations sanctioned under previous development plan were directed to be deleted and the large area around the Airport, which was maintained as a green belt, was recommended under revised plan for commercial zone.      7. In view of the aforesaid findings and other reasons recorded in the order, writ petition was allowed by quashing the notification dated 04.02.2016, issued under Section 26(1) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and further declared the orders of the delegated authority, extending the period as illegal, with a further direction that the remaining work of preparation of the plan is to be undertaken by the Deputy Director of Town Planning or the concerned Divisional Joint Director, as the case may be.

Court's reasoning:
9. Having heard learned counsels on both sides and on perusal of the impugned judgment and other material placed on record, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India10. The High Court, mainly on the ground that the Planning Authority has not prepared a draft development plan within the time prescribed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act, has allowed the writ petition with a further direction that the competent authority shall undertake the remaining work relating to preparation of draft development plan and submit to the State Government for sanction. Though, elaborate arguments were advanced, stating that the time frame fixed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act is only directory and not mandatory and further prescribed period can be extended as per the proviso, by entertaining an application even after expiry of time etc., however, we are of the view that the said aspects need not be gone into at this stage by this Court13. In this case, it is to be noted that proceedings were initiated in the year 2013 for revising the draft development plan and for one reason or the other, the proceedings remained at the stage of preparation of draft development plan. In view of the directions of the High Court, the said plan is yet to be prepared and is to be submitted to the Government for sanction. In any event having regard to communication/letter dated 15.01.2020 a fresh combined development plan for original and extended limits is to be prepared for Aurangabad city10. The High Court, mainly on the ground that the Planning Authority has not prepared a draft development plan within the time prescribed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act, has allowed the writ petition with a further direction that the competent authority shall undertake the remaining work relating to preparation of draft development plan and submit to the State Government for sanction. Though, elaborate arguments were advanced, stating that the time frame fixed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act is only directory and not mandatory and further prescribed period can be extended as per the proviso, by entertaining an application even after expiry of time etc., however, we are of the view that the said aspects need not be gone into at this stage by this. Chapter III of the MRTP Act deals with the preparation of development plan and as per Section 38 of the MRTP Act development plan is to be revised at least once in twenty years. For the preparation of development plan, or the revised development plan, proceedings have to be initiated three years earlier to its sanction by the Government. If the draft development plan is not prepared and published in the Official Gazette, by the planning authority, within the time frame, the competent authority as prescribed under Section 21(4A) shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of a planning authority which may be necessary for the purpose of preparing a development plan and submitting it to the State Government for sanction.