Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Modern Education Society, Vita, a registered public trust engaged in educational activities, challenged a part of the notification dated 1st June 2011 issued by the State Government under Section 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The second respondent was the Municipal Council, the planning authority under the MRTP Act. The planning authority had published a draft development plan on 25th March 2006, and after following procedure, submitted it to the State Government on 24th March 2009 for sanction under Section 30(1). Two parts of the draft plan were sanctioned by notifications dated 1st October 2009 and 23rd February 2011. On 31st August 2009, the State Government published a notification of its intention to make modifications of substantial nature to certain lands, including the petitioner's land. The final notification dated 1st June 2011 modified the reservation of the petitioner's land from educational purpose to residential purpose. The petitioner contended that the modification was of a substantial nature and required compliance with Section 31(3) and Section 37 of the MRTP Act, which mandate publication of notice and opportunity of hearing. The State Government argued that the modification was not substantial and was done under Section 31(1) without need for further procedure. The court analyzed the provisions and held that the modification changing the land use from educational to residential was a modification of substantial nature. Since the State Government did not follow the procedure under Section 31(3) and Section 37, the modification was invalid. The court quashed the impugned part of the notification insofar as it related to the petitioner's land. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Modification of Development Plan - Section 31(1), 31(3), 37 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The State Government modified the development plan by changing reservation of land from educational to residential without issuing notice or hearing the petitioner - Held that modifications of substantial nature require compliance with Section 31(3) and Section 37, which mandate publication of notice and opportunity of hearing - The impugned modification was quashed (Paras 1-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government's modification to the development plan under Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act, which changed the reservation of the petitioner's land from educational purpose to residential purpose, was valid without following the procedure under Section 31(3) and Section 37 of the MRTP Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned part of the notification dated 1st June 2011 insofar as it related to the petitioner's land. The modification was held invalid for non-compliance with Section 31(3) and Section 37 of the MRTP Act.
Law Points
- Modifications of substantial nature to development plan require compliance with Section 31(3) of MRTP Act
- Section 37 of MRTP Act
- opportunity of hearing
- publication of notice
- consideration of objections
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.7118 OF 2011
Mr. Shriniwas S. Patwardhan, Mr. V.S. Gokhale, Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Mr. V.A. Thorat
Modern Education Society, Vita
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a part of the notification dated 1st June 2011 issued by the State Government under Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act modifying the development plan.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the modification to the development plan that changed the reservation of its land from educational purpose to residential purpose.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the modification was of a substantial nature and was made without following the procedure under Section 31(3) and Section 37 of the MRTP Act, which require publication of notice and opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
The draft development plan was submitted by the planning authority on 24th March 2009. Two parts were sanctioned by notifications dated 1st October 2009 and 23rd February 2011. On 31st August 2009, the State Government notified its intention to make modifications of substantial nature. The final notification dated 1st June 2011 modified the reservation of the petitioner's land.
Issues
Whether the modification of the development plan changing the reservation of the petitioner's land from educational to residential purpose is a modification of substantial nature?
Whether the State Government was required to follow the procedure under Section 31(3) and Section 37 of the MRTP Act before making such modification?
Whether the impugned modification is valid?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the modification was of substantial nature and required compliance with Section 31(3) and Section 37, which mandate publication of notice and opportunity of hearing. The State Government failed to do so.
The State Government contended that the modification was not substantial and was made under Section 31(1) without need for further procedure.
Ratio Decidendi
Modifications of substantial nature to a development plan under Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act require compliance with Section 31(3) and Section 37, which mandate publication of notice and opportunity of hearing to affected persons. Failure to follow this procedure renders the modification invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to a part of the Notification dated 1st June, 2011 published by the State Government in exercise of powers under SubSection (1) of Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
The second Respondent Planning Authority published a draft Development Plan dated 25th March, 2006 and objections and suggestions to the said draft were invited.
On 31st August, 2009, the State Government published a Notification by which the State Government notified its intention to make certain modifications of substantial nature in relation to certain lands.
Procedural History
The planning authority published a draft development plan on 25th March 2006. After inviting objections and suggestions, the draft was submitted to the State Government on 24th March 2009 for sanction under Section 30(1). Two parts were sanctioned on 1st October 2009 and 23rd February 2011. On 31st August 2009, the State Government notified its intention to make modifications of substantial nature. The final notification dated 1st June 2011 modified the reservation of the petitioner's land. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the modification.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 2(15), Section 2(19), Section 30(1), Section 31(1), Section 31(3), Section 37
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
