Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant trust. The trust challenged an order dated 3.5.2006 by which the State Government refused to sanction a variation of a Town Planning Scheme under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The background involved a plot of land in Pune originally owned by the Thorat family. In 1956, a portion was sold to Swami Dilip Kumar Roy and Smt. Indira Devi, who established the Hare Krishna Mandir. The plot was later subdivided, and a road measuring 444.14 sq. m. was shown as owned by the Pune Municipal Corporation in the sanctioned scheme. The trust, claiming ownership of the road, sought deletion of the Corporation's name and merger of the road with adjacent plots. The State Government initially directed the Corporation to undertake variation, but later refused to sanction it. The High Court upheld the refusal. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 91 and found that the Government's refusal was based on valid considerations, including the need for the road for access. The Court held that the Government had the discretion to refuse sanction and that the decision was not arbitrary. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Variation of Scheme - Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Refusal to Sanction - The State Government refused to sanction a variation to delete an internal road and merge it with adjacent plots. The Court held that the Government's refusal was based on valid considerations and was not arbitrary. (Paras 1-22) B) Ownership - Internal Road - Dispute - The appellant claimed ownership of the internal road, but the Court noted that the road was shown as owned by the Pune Municipal Corporation in the sanctioned scheme. The Court did not decide the ownership issue as it was not directly in question. (Paras 7-14) C) Locus Standi - Trust - The appellant trust, claiming ownership of the road, had locus to challenge the refusal, but the Court found no merit in the challenge. (Paras 1-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government was justified in refusing to sanction a variation of the Town Planning Scheme under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, to delete an internal road and merge it with adjacent plots, and whether the appellant trust had locus standi to challenge the refusal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bombay High Court's judgment and the State Government's refusal to sanction the variation.
Law Points
- Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966
- Variation of Town Planning Scheme
- Ownership of internal road
- Power of State Government to refuse sanction
