Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Reservation of Land for Burial Ground in Ulhasnagar Development Plan. Petitioners, as mere occupants without title, lack standing to challenge the notification under Section 31 of the MRTP Act, 1966.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 104
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, residents of structures on site Nos. 244 and 245 in Ulhasnagar, challenged a notification dated 23rd April 2018 issued under Section 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, by which the State Government sanctioned certain excluded parts of the Draft Revised Development Plan for Ulhasnagar, including a reservation of part of site No. 245 for a burial ground. The petitioners admitted they had no right, title or interest in the land and were merely occupants. The court found that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the reservation as they had no legal right in the land. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - Locus Standi - Challenge to Reservation - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 31 - Petitioners, being mere occupants of structures on the land without any right, title or interest, have no locus standi to challenge the notification sanctioning the reservation of a part of the land for a burial ground. The court held that the petitioners cannot maintain the petition as they have no legal right in the land. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners, who are mere occupants without any right, title or interest in the land, have locus standi to challenge the notification sanctioning the reservation of a part of the land for a burial ground under the MRTP Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Locus standi
  • Reservation of land for public purpose
  • Challenge to development plan notification
  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
  • 1966
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 91

Writ Petition (ST) No. 14717 of 2018

2018-06-07

A.S. Oka, Riyaz I. Chagla

Ms. Minal J. Chandnani i/b Mr. Vivek Pohuja for the Petitioners; Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 7, 8, 10 to 13; Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Suresh M. Kamble, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4

Maya Madan Thakur & Ors.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging a notification under Section 31 of the MRTP Act sanctioning a part of the Draft Revised Development Plan for Ulhasnagar.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to quash the notification dated 23rd April 2018 reserving part of site No. 245 for a burial ground.

Filing Reason

Petitioners, residents of structures on site Nos. 244 and 245, objected to the reservation of part of site No. 245 for a burial ground.

Previous Decisions

The State Government had earlier sanctioned part of the draft plan on 21st April 2017, and after considering objections, sanctioned the excluded portions (EP-1, EP-18, EP-19, EP-129) with modifications by the impugned notification dated 23rd April 2018.

Issues

Whether the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the notification under Section 31 of the MRTP Act when they have no right, title or interest in the land.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the description of site Nos. 245 and 244 kept changing and it was unclear which land formed part of site No. 245.

Ratio Decidendi

A person who is merely an occupant of a structure on land without any right, title or interest in the land has no locus standi to challenge a notification under Section 31 of the MRTP Act reserving the land for a public purpose.

Judgment Excerpts

The case of the Petitioners is that they are residents of the site Nos. 244 and 245 covered by the impugned notification. Even according to the case of the Petitioners, they have no right, title and interest in respect of the lands subject matter of site Nos. 245 and 244 and that they are merely occupying the structures thereon.

Procedural History

The Draft Revised Development Plan for Ulhasnagar was prepared by the Planning Authority and submitted to the State Government on 2nd July 2014 under Section 30(1) of the MRTP Act. Part of the draft was sanctioned on 21st April 2017 under Section 31(1). For the excluded part, proposed modifications were published on 21st April 2017, and after considering objections, the impugned notification dated 23rd April 2018 sanctioned the excluded portions with modifications. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the notification.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 30, Section 31
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Holds Service of Writ of Summons Without Copy of Plaint Invalid in Commercial Suits Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Time for Filing Written Statement Does Not Run Until Proper Service Effected.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Adjudicates Regular First Appeal and Cross Objection Against Trial Court's Partial Decree in Suit for Declaration and Injunction. Court Addresses Maintainability, Adoption Validity, and Ancestral Property Claims...