Shri. Sadashiv Babasaheb Pawar vs Deputy Director Town Planning, Division Pune And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010429802012

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2879 OF 2013
Shri. Sadashiv Babasaheb Pawar ... Petitioner
V/s.
Deputy Director Town Planning
Division Pune, Pune & Ors. ... Respondents
_________
Mr. T. D. Deshmukh with Ms. K. S. Mahuli for Petitioner.
Smt. M. P. Thakur, AGP for State.
_________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 10 JULY 2026.
Oral Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. The petitioner, who has described himself as a businessman engaged in the
development and promotion of real estate in Pune, has filed the present petition
contending that he is the owner of lands situated in the villages of Kesnand,
Wadebolhai and Siraswadi (for short “the said villages”). He states that he is also
holding powers of attorney from the other landowners of the said villages in
respect of certain other lands, which he intends to develop. The grievance of the
petitioner is that he is unable to do so, as these lands have been categorized in the
Regional Plan to be falling within the agricultural and/or no-development zone.
The petitioner contends that the land in these village ought to have been
categorized under the residential zone, so as to facilitate development.
2. The petitioner, accordingly, initiated proceedings under Section 20 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “MRTP Act”),
which provides for the “Revision and Modification of Regional Plans”, seeking
Page 1 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
amendment of the Regional Plan for converting the lands in the said villages from
Agricultural and No-Development Zone to the Residential Zone.
3. The State Government, after following the prescribed procedure as
contemplated by Section 20(4) of the MRTP Act, passed the impugned order,
declining to modify the Regional Plan, to convert the agricultural and no-
development zone into a ‘residential zone.’ It is in these circumstances, the
present petition has been filed, praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
“a) That the records and proceedings be kindly called for;
b) On perusal of the same this Honorable Court be pleased to issue
appropriate writ of certiorari and or any other writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned
decision dated 29.7.2010 taken by Respondent No. 3 to reject the
proposal of modification under section 20(4) of the Petitioner for change
of zone of said lands from agricultural and no development zone to
residential zone from village Kesnand and Wadebolahai in Pune Regional
plan and be further pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to approve
the modification under section 20(4) of the said Act of the said lands.
c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that and declare that
the decision of Respondent No. 3 dated 29.7.2010 to reject the proposal
of modification under section 20(4) of the Petitioner for change of zone
of said lands from agricultural and no development zone to residential
zone from village Kesnand and Wadebolahai in Pune Regional plan after
completion of necessary action under section 20(3) of said Act on the
basis of report dated 17.6.2010 is illegal and improper.”
4. Briefly the relevant facts are required to be noted:-
It is the petitioner's case that in the said villages, there are lands aggregating
about 190 acres, which now fall within the jurisdiction of the Pune Metropolitan
Region Development Authority (for short “PMRDA”). The petitioner contends
that the Regional Plan for the Pune region was sanctioned on 25 November 1997
which came into force, with effect from 10 February 1998, under which the said
lands were designated to fall in the agricultural and no-development zone.
Page 2 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
Hence, considering such categorization of the lands, no construction permission
could be granted, which prohibits any development or construction on such
lands.
5. It is the petitioner's case that owing to rapid urbanization in the PMRDA
region, in or about 2003 steps were sought to be taken by him to seek
modification of the Regional Plan by converting the said lands from Agricultural /
No-Development Zone to the Residential / Development Zone. The petitioner
contends that accordingly, on 14 July 2003, a proposal under Section 20(2) of the
MRTP Act was submitted seeking inclusion of the said lands in the residential
zone and for removal of these lands from the no-development zone. Pursuant
thereto, on 13 August 2003, the Secretary, Urban Development Department,
called for a report from the Director Town Planning (DTP), who, in turn, sought
a report from the Assistant Director, Town Planning (ADTP) on 30 August 2003.
The ADTP, accordingly, submitted a report dated 24 June 2004, in which the
ADTP did not recommend the inclusion of the lands, situated in the said villages
in the residential zone, as such inclusion would result in ‘spot zoning’, meaning
thereby that such specific lands cannot be used for residential-commercial
development, while the other lands would continue to remain in the
agricultural/no-development zone. Thus, a proposal for such selective use of
certain lands for non-agricultural purpose, being the basis, the ADTP did not
recommend the modification of the regional plan so as to convert these lands into
a development zone. Thereafter on 28 September 2004, the DTP forwarded the
report of ADTP to the State Government.
Page 3 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
6. The petitioner contends that on such backdrop, on 07 February 2005, a
revised proposal for modification of the Regional Plan was submitted,
accompanied by a certificate issued by the Talathi stating that the said lands
contained several human settlements and houses of agriculturists. It is also the
petitioner's case that the Urban Development Department prepared an internal
note stating that the said lands had residential potential in view of the approach
road, existing human settlements, and a residential school. According to the
petitioner, such note was considered at various levels within the State
Government.
7. On such backdrop, the petitioner contends that on 12 December 2008, the
State Government declared its intention to conditionally approve the proposed
modification by publishing a notification under Section 20(3) of the MRTP Act,
thereby inviting objections and suggestions to the proposed modification. The
State Government also appointed the Deputy Director of Town Planning solely
to hear persons, who would submit objections or suggestions, so as to submit a
report on such steps being taken. According to the petitioner, the Deputy
Director of Town Planning was not authorized to submit a report expressing any
opinion on the proposed modification. It is contended that, insofar as the subject
lands were concerned, none objected, hence no suggestions or objections were
received, hence, further action under Section 20 of the MRTP Act was required to
be taken to change the zoning of the said lands. It is the petitioner’s case that in
these circumstances, on 18 September 2009, the DTP recommended to the State
Government that appropriate further action be taken to approve the proposed
Page 4 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
modification.
8. As contended by the petitioner, however, on 05 March 2010, the State
Government again forwarded part plan to the DTP to invite objections and
suggestions. Accordingly, on 09 March 2010, the DTP, in turn, referred the part
plan to the ADTP for further action. Pursuant thereto, on 31 May 2010, the
ADTP submitted a report recording that no suggestions or objections were
received and accordingly, recommended modification under Section 20(4) of the
MRTP Act. It is, however, the petitioner's case that, on 17 June 2010, the DTP,
again expressed a view that the proposed modification would result in spot
zoning, although the earlier issue of spot zoning had already been considered.
According to the petitioner, such opinion of the DTP was made despite an
internal note prepared by the Urban Development recommending that such
modification could be approved. However, the basis of such internal note if the
same is to be tested on the requirements of law and on the perspectives of an
expert opinion, which otherwise would be necessary, has not been put forth with
any clarity as the law would mandate. The petitioner further contends that a
remark on the said note was made by the DTP dated 20 July 2010, against the
proposal for revision of the regional plan on the ground that such
recommendation for modification cannot be accepted, for the reason that it would
amount to spot zoning.
9. On the aforesaid backdrop, the State Government very consciously
accepted such remarks of the DTP, and published a notification dated 11 August
2010 rejecting the proposal for modification. The petitioner thereafter applied for
Page 5 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
a review of the said decision, but the review application was rejected. Accordingly,
the present petition was filed on 17 October 2012 praying for the reliefs as noted
by us hereinabove.
10. A reply affidavit of Avinash Patil, Joint Director of Town Planning, Pune
Division, Pune, is filed on behalf of the State Government, contending that the
present petition suffers from gross delay and laches. It is contended that the
petitioner's assertion regarding the existence of residential structures in the
vicinity is incorrect, as the structures referred to are unauthorized constructions
situated in the No Development Zone. It is inter alia contended that such
unauthorized constructions cannot be relied by the petitioner to contend that the
area has development potential. It is further contended that, in the light of the
remarks of the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune (DTP), in
regard to the proposed change of zone, the State Government duly considered the
matter and rejected the proposal on that ground. Accordingly, the impugned
proposal for change of zone was rejected by the Government on 30 September
2011. What has been stated in the following paragraphs of the reply affidavit
assumes significance, in regard to the reasons as to why the State Government was
not inclined to accept the modification sought by the petitioner. The relevant
extract of the affidavit reads thus:-
“14. With respect to para Nos. 19 to 21 of the Petition, I say that the
Petitioner has contended that the Government before rejecting the
proposal under Section 20(4) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town
Planning, 1966 had called for the remarks of the Director of Town
Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune vide letter dated 27/10/2010. I say
that, after inspecting the lands under reference, the Director of Town
Planning again submitted his remarks to the Government on 29.01.2011
(Appendix Q page 75 of the Petition) stating that there was very scanty
development around the land, and there was no residential zone in the
Page 6 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
surrounding area, owing to which the remarks communicated previously
were retained.
I say that the review application was also rejected by the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development Department on 30/09/2011 (page 77)
considering the facts in the matter.
15. With regard to the grounds raised in the petition, I say that the
contention of the Petitioner that the decision of the Government to
reject the draft modification proposal under section 20(4) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 in respect of the
lands in village Kesanand and Wadebolhai, after completion of action
under section 20(3) with the approval of the State Government and in
the absence of any suggestions or objections to the proposed
modification is against the law is denied, because it is not mandatory on
the part of the Government to sanction under the provisions of section
20(4) of the said Act any draft modification in respect of which Notice is
published under section 20(3) of the said Act. The provision of Section
20 (4) is as under :-
"After considering the objections and suggestions in respect of the draft
modification under sub-section (2), the State Government may approve
the modification of the Regional Plan with such amendments, if any, as
it may think fit, and shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette,
stating that the modification of the Regional Plan specified therein has
been approved. The notice shall also state the place where a copy of
modification to the Regional plan may be inspected at all reasonable
hours, and shall specify therein a date on which the modification of the
plan shall come into operation."
16. I say that the Petitioner's lands are surrounded by 'Agricultural / No
Development Zone" and therefore converting them into residential zone
would result in spot zoning which is not at all desirable from planning
point of view.
19. The Petitioner has contended that the rejection of modification after
completion of procedure under Section 20(3) of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is against the law, equity and
justice. I say that the contention of the petitioner is denied in view of the
provisions under Section 20 of the said Act, as already stated
hereinabove.
20. I say that the impugned orders regarding rejection of the application
of the petitioner for change of the zone from Agriculture and no
development zone to residential zone from village Kesnand and
Wadebolahai in Pune regional plan are decisions taken by competent
authority after taking a considered view of the matter and every action
taken by the Government is as per the provisions as stipulated in Section
20 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. And
therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same may be
dismissed with cost.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 7 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
11. On the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has limited
submissions. It is submitted that the recommendations made by the DTP and
ADTP do not find place in the revised Regional Plan or the modification of the
regional plan. He therefore submits that the remarks made by the DTP/ADTP in
regard to spot zoning ought to have been discarded by the State Government and
not accepted, and that the proposed modification ought to have been sanctioned
accordingly. It is his submission that the legislature does not specifically confer
any role on the DTP and ADTP under the scheme of Section 20(2) of the MRTP
Act. Therefore, the Government is under no obligation to consider their remarks.
According to him, in the present case, the reports submitted by the DTP and
ADTP merely state that any modification would amount to spot zoning and on
that basis, recommend that such modification ought not to be permitted. In
support of his contention, Mr. Deshmukh has placed reliance on the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in Chandulal Motilal Talera and others vs. State
1
of Maharashtra & Ors. .
13. On the other hand, the learned AGP opposed this petition relying on the
reply affidavit. She contends that the reading and/or interpretation of Section 20
of the MRTP Act, as urged on behalf of the petitioner, is incorrect and not
tenable. It is her submission that Section 20(2) of the MRTP Act cannot be
construed in a manner which places such fetter on the Government’s powers so as
to prevent it from considering the remarks of the DTP, which is the expert
1 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 878
Page 8 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
authority in the State, on town planning. She accordingly prays that the petition
be dismissed.
Analysis
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, we find that the petitioner’s contention that merely because no
suggestions or objections were received pursuant to the notice issued under
Section 20(3) of the MRTP Act, hence, the State Government was bound to issue
the proposed modification, in our opinion, is wholly untenable. This becomes
clear from a reading of the provisions of Section 20 of the MRTP Act.
Considering the nature of the controversy, it would be imperative to note the
provisions of Section 20 which read thus:-
“20. [Revision or modification] [These words were substituted for the
words 'Revisions' by Maharashtra 6 of 1976, Section 6(c).] of Regional
Plan.
(1) If the State Government at any time after a Regional plan has
come into operation, but not earlier than ten years therefrom is of the
opinion that revision of such Regional plan is necessary and there is no
Regional Board for the Region to which plan relates, to undertake such
revision, the State Government may constitute a Regional Planning
Board under section 4, or Regional Board may, with the previous
approval of the State Government, also revise the Regional plan; and
thereupon, the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as they
can be made applicable apply to the revision of the Regional plan as those
provisions apply in relation to the preparation, [publication of notice]
[These words were substituted for the words 'publication' by Maharashtra
6 of 1976, Section 6(a).] and approval of a Regional plan.
(2)[Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State
Government may, at any time after a Regional Plan has come into
operation, make any modification in such plan in the manner hereinafter
provided if in its opinion such modification is necessary for the balanced
development of the Region for which such plan has been prepared and
approved.
(3)For the purpose of modifying a Regional Plan under sub-section (2)
the State Government shall publish a notice in the Official Gazette
announcing its intention to make the modification specified in the notice
and invite objections or suggestions from any person with respect to such
Page 9 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
modification in writing with reasons therefor within such period as may
be specified in the notice. The notice shall also be published in at least
one newspaper having trade wide circulation in the Region and in such
other manner as the State Government may think fit in the circumstances
of each case.
(4)After considering the objections and suggestions in respect of the draft
modification under sub-section (2), the State Government may approve
the modification of the Regional Plan with such amendments, if any, as it
may think fit, and shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette,
stating that the modification of the Regional Plan specified therein has
been approved. The notice shall also state the place where a copy of
modifications to the Regional Plan may be inspected at all reasonable
hours, and shall specify therein a date on which the modification of the
plan shall come into operation. ] [Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) were
substituted for sub-sections (2) and (3) by Maharashtra 6 of 1976,
Section 6(b).] ”
(emphasis supplied)
15. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, makes it clear that it provides for
‘revision or modification of regional plan’ which specifically provides for an
embargo to the effect that if the State Government at any time after a regional
plan has come into operation, but not earlier than ten years therefrom, is of the
opinion that revision of such Regional plan is necessary and there is no Regional
Board for the Region to which plan relates, to undertake such revision, the State
Government can constitute a Regional Planning Board under section 4.
However, sub-section (2) is an exception to sub-section (1) which provides that
the State Government may, at any time after a Regional Plan has come into
operation, make any modification in such plan in the manner provided in the said
provision if in its opinion such modification is necessary for the balanced
development of the Region for which such plan has been prepared and approved.
Sub-section (3) contemplates the provision which is required to be followed in
that regard, i.e. for modifying a Regional Plan under sub-section (2) the State
Page 10 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
Government is required to publish a notice in the Official Gazette announcing its
intention to make the modification specified in the notice and invite objections or
suggestions from any person with respect to such modification in writing with
reasons therefor within such period as may be specified in the notice. Sub-section
(4) provides that after considering the objections and suggestions in respect of the
draft modification under sub-section (2), the State Government may approve the
modification of the Regional Plan with such amendments, if any, “as it may think
fit” , and shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette, stating that the
modification of the Regional Plan specified therein has been approved. The notice
shall also state the place where a copy of modifications to the Regional Plan may
be inspected at all reasonable hours, and shall specify therein a date on which the
modification of the plan shall come into operation.
16. Thus, having considered the legislative scheme of Section 20, the
petitioner's contention that the remarks which are made and submitted by the
authorities working at the ground level, namely the DTP and ADTP, are
redundant and of no relevance, cannot be accepted. Sub-section (4) confers
absolute discretion with the State Government to consider objections and
suggestions, and to approve or modify the Regional Plan with such amendments,
if any, “ as it may think fit”, or “ decide not to grant approval”. This power
necessarily encompasses the authority to consider the remarks and suggestions
submitted by the DTP and ADTP whose remarks became paramount, as these
authorities are the custodians of any effective town planning.
17. Any town planning involves a great deal of public interest to be adhered by
Page 11 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
such authorities to cater to the longer societal interest accompanied with a vision
for the future. Hence, there is an onerous obligation on the planning authorities
to have a systemic planning by balancing all the factors, and not have a myopic
approach to succumb to private interest. Town planning which is tailored to cater
to specific private interest, compromising larger public interest and the societal
needs, would not only be an arbitrary action, but a farce of town planning.
18. The tendency of concretisation and reckless development permissions any
where and every where, altering the open spaces, green zone, disturbing urban
forest, parks, gardens, play grounds, town planning reservations and misuse of
lands reserved for such purpose are some of the objectionable actions resorted to
defeat the larger public interest. It is only when the town planning authorities are
vigilant, conscientious and wielding a robust approach to cater to larger public
interest as in the present case, it is only then, the ideals of town planning can be
achieved. Thus, when land sharks are sitting on the fence, to destroy and grab no
development/green zone lands for private motives, it is necessary that such actions
are interfered by the Government machinery in a uniform manner, from the
lowest to the highest level of the State Government, so as to take a decision only
in public interest.
19. It thus cannot be a situation, that merely because no suggestions and
objections were received from the public, in respect of this small bunch of lands,
the State Government should have proceeded mechanically under sub-section (4)
and grant modification of the said revised plan, particularly when such
modification was seeking conversion of land designated as ‘no development zone’
Page 12 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
or ‘agricultural zone’ into residential or any other use. In our opinion, the
decision which has been taken by the State Government is loudable and in larger
public interest.
20. It is evident that the high ranking officers, namely, the DTP and ADTP
took a well considered decision in preparing the report and submitting it to the
State Government. The proposed modification of the Regional Plan, seeking to
convert Green Zone/Agricultural Land/No Development Zone into Residential
Zone, particularly in respect of limited parcels of land, would, in fact, defeat the
very object and intent of proper regional plans when the Regional Plan
specifically contemplates for the preservation of such areas as Green Zones and
No Development Zones. Any such modification as defined by the petitioner
amounting to spot zoning was rightly declined for any modification of the
regional plan in the report of the DTP. In our opinion, this represents the correct
planning position satisfying the test of law. It is not possible to overlook that it is
spot zoning, which is sought to be avoided, being a major factor when the State
Government considers the revision or modification of the regional plan under
Section 20 of the MRTP Act. The State Government has rightly taken this aspect
into consideration in the present case.
21. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that the decision as taken by the
State Government is completely in accordance with law and within the powers
conferred on the State Government under Section 20. To accept the petitioner’s
contention that Sections 20(2), (3) and (4) do not permit the DTP or ADTP to
have any say, would amount to a complete misreading of the said provision and/or
Page 13 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
rendering the petitioners otiose, thereby undermining the powers of the State
Government.
22. In fact, such contention if accepted would lead to an absurdity and may, in
a given situation, result in a chaotic situation in matters concerning town
planning, which necessarily requires consideration by experts from the Town
Planning Department, including the DTP and ADTP. We also do not find any
substance in the petitioner's contention that certain lands should not be
designated as falling within the no development zone or agricultural zone in the
regional plan, merely on the ground that such lands can have a potential to be
developed.
23. We also do not appreciate the position adopted by the petitioner in
obtaining power of attorney from the owners of the land with the sole intention,
that such lands could be perceived for development and, for such purpose,
undertaking litigation of the nature as involved in the present proceedings, so as
to bring about modification of the regional plan and assail the solemn decision
taken by the State Government.
24. The flip side also needs to be considered. It cannot be countenanced that
merely because certain persons have financial resources, they would acquire lands
situated in the proximity of cities, fully knowing that such lands fall within a ‘No
development zone’, with the sole intention to get the land dereserved or the zone
changed, merely to commercialize and/or profiteer from such land. Such
approach on the part of any person, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded
Page 14 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
to have any rationale, much less of any sanctity in law. It is this category of
persons who eye to grab lands at throwaway prices looking at the development
potential by taking advantage of the ill-informed and financially weak
agriculturists/farmers, who are already in distress, by luring them with a promise
of substantial monetary gains. In reality, such gains are hardly enduring and in fact
are counter productive and prejudicial to the large interests of the agriculturists,
who for generations together have cultivated and preserved these lands, situated
in such green or no-development zones. The petitioner appears to have exactly
indulged in such practice by obtaining power of attorneys from the landholder
with the intention of blocking such lands for future commercial development. It
is with this only purpose to profiteer, that the petitioner purports to take recourse
to the provisions of MRTP Act, to get the zoning of the land changed, so as to
make way, for a bonanza of commercial exploitation. Such tendencies and
approach, under no circumstances, can either be encouraged or recognized. Such
actions in given cases are required to strictly dealt with iron hands, so that the
financial might of such persons, in no manner takes away, the larger public
interest and the requirements of an ideal town planning.
25. In fact, it is such tendencies which have substantially deprived citizens of
green zones, resulting in unwarranted urbanization in villages, which otherwise
would not have witnessed such development merely because of their proximity to
cities like Pune.
26. We would be failing in our duty if we do not observe that such tendencies,
particularly in relation to the city like Pune and its surrounding areas where the
Page 15 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
present land is situated, such tendencies of agricultural lands being utilized for
commercial and residential purposes have resulted in uncontrolled concretisation
in complete substitution of agriculture. The plight of other developing cities is
not different (see: Yashwant Anna Bhoir vs. State of Maharashtra, through its
2
Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department & Ors. ). It is a common
sight that such lands which were earlier agricultural lands and designated green
zones have now been completely converted into residential and commercial
developments, with high-rise structures.
27. Somewhat similar situation was subject matter of consideration before the
Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) was a
member, in Yashwant Anna Bhoir (supra) in which the green zones agricultural
lands being haphazardly converted into residential zones, with permissions to
construct skyscrapers and consequently, the urban chaos created by such selected
conversion of limited lands for non-agricultural usage, while the surrounding
lands having remained to be green/agricultural lands. Such approach was
deprecated by this Court. The observations as made by the Court are of
significance in the present context, which reads thus:
“32. However, the contemporary situation as also the experience depicts an
alarming situation on such fronts. Considering the facts of the case, it appears
that originally majority of these lands were agricultural lands. The
agricultural lands are converted into non- agricultural lands (N.A.) by the
Collector, who exercises these powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code. It is on such N.A. lands, development permissions are being granted
by the KBMC and that too to high rise buildings/sky scrappers. Thus, the
position which emerges is that in a particular area, NA lands are being
utilized for construction of high rise buildings, whereas those lands which are
not converted as NA lands continue to be utilized as agricultural lands which
get adversely affected by the surrounding developments as in the present
2 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3298
Page 16 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
case. This is quite haphazard. There cannot be a layout which has partially
NA lands with high-rise buildings and adjoining to which there exist
agricultural lands. Such scattered and disorganized development is
antithetical to a systematic town planning.
33. The collector who is the originator of such indiscriminate classification of
the uses of land by granting a change of user needs to take decisions on a
scientific and well considered norms and for reasons to be recorded in writing
and only after consultation with the different stake holders like the owners of
land in the same area, expert opinions from the architects, Environment
Authorities and the Director of Town Planning, failing which such unilateral
decision is likely to harmful for an appropriate town planning and/or is likely
to be arbitrary, causing prejudice to the different stake holders, adversely
affecting their valuable rights, as in the present case.
34. If we apply the aforesaid tests to the facts of the present case, it is
apparent that there appears to be lack of a systematic planning and
development of residential/commercial layouts within the KBMC area. Also
it appears that the building permissions are being arbitrarily granted by the
KBMC at the mood of the passing moment. This is something which needs
to be corrected and regulated, as actions of such nature which do not accept
any rationale and are beyond the framework of law, cannot be recognized.
35. For those who have agricultural land in such areas, find agriculture less
remunerative and selling of lands to developers becomes more beneficial and
it is the sale of such non-agricultural lands (originally agricultural land)
which has contributed to the rapid development of the distant suburbs of
Thane, whereas some landholders having agricultural land may intend to
wait for the best possible opportunity when the land prices increase and then
to develop their lands. However, this would not mean that a particular land
owner deciding to convert his land into NA for developing the same, would
be prevented from doing so, and if so permitted by the planning authority as
may be permissible in law.
36. The reason we have pointed out such concerns is to highlight that it is in
these circumstances, development of the municipal infrastructure becomes a
sine qua non. As observed in the Expert's report, there is a growing need for
urban housing in the KBMC area. The proximity of Badlapur to Mumbai
and Thane, availability of suburban trains and road transport has made the
KBMC area a popular suburb. It is, thus, an onerous responsibility on the
part of the Town Planning Authority/Directorate of Town Planning as also
the KBMC to adopt robust town planning measures so that an ideally
planned city is created and not an urban chaos resulting in a haphazard
concrete jungle. The pace with which development permissions are being
granted at the insistence of the developers, as also the speed with which
constructions are coming up and people occupying such high rise
constructions, needs to match with the availability of the infrastructure and
planning requirements, which is purely and entirely within the domain of the
planning authorities.
37. It cannot be a situation that on one hand the Collector goes on granting
N.A. permissions, as also the Planning Authority keeps granting approvals to
the proposals for high rise constructions, and on the other hand, the basic
infrastructure facilities like a sewerage system, operational STP, roads,
pavements, footpaths, playgrounds, gardens, children's parks etc. are lacking
Page 17 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
as the development progresses. This would amount to a situation of nothing
less than a high degree of urban disorder, leading to an irreparable and a
chaotic situation in terms of planning, which would bring about innumerable
public woes including serious health concerns, like typhoid, malaria, dengue
etc. For the health of the citizens not being adversely affected, it is the duty of
the planning authority to maintain proper sanitation and cleanliness in the
municipal areas.
38. Thus, the nightmare of such municipal chaos in the Kulgaon Badlapur
Municipal Council is required to be urgently attended. Stitch in time is the
immediate necessity, considering the fact that for want of an appropriate
sewerage line or sewer system, there are open nallas, drains, which flow on
open lands, as in the petitioner's case. In fact buildings are seen to be
surrounded by pool of dirt, filth and sewage water. This is certainly not what
is expected from an urban planning body, more particularly, considering the
settled principles of the obligations of such statutory bodies to conserve
environment and ecology. Also, any pollution of river water can never be
tolerated. The law in this regard is well-settled which we discuss
hereinunder.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. On the aforesaid backdrop, the State Government has, therefore, rightly
not accepted the proposal for revision or modification of the land use in question,
as allowing such change would lead to further concretization and a chaos, which
has been brought about by such rapid development. In our opinion, such
uncontrolled development has now reached a stage of saturation.
29. In the above circumstances, we may observe that there is no scope for any
revised planning or for taking into consideration proposals put forward by citizens
for commercial development. Further to tinker regional plans on such
consideration is a dangerous path. It is the duty of every citizen to maintain and
protect the environment, and it is for such reason that no development zones /
green zones are notified in the regional plan and are required to be strictly
preserved, considering the large public interest for the years/generation to come.
Also any encroachment on such category of lands needs to be dealt strictly with
no sympathy for the encroachments. This requirement to maintain green areas in
Page 18 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
and around the towns assumes greater significance failing which one day a
situation may be brought about that for the future, no green zones would at all
remain and all available land is converted into a concrete jungle, as appears to be
happening in several surrounding cities.
30. Thus, in our considered opinion, it is of utmost necessity that the stand
taken by DTP and ADTP in the present case needs to be sustained and respected.
The State Government has rightly discouraged the tendency of the land grabbers
to acquire lands solely with an intention of development, without considering the
environmental consequences and the adverse effects such development may have
for the future. Such a stand of the State Government deserves to be upheld and in
fact replicated by the State Government.
31. Insofar as reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision in
Chandulal Motilal Talera and others vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) is
concerned, in our opinion, the same would not assist the petitioner. In fact, in
such case the plot in question was the plot which belonged to the State
Government and which was in use by Lonavala Municipal Council for the
purpose of a dumping ground for nearly sixty years. The petitioner had
contended that the power under Section 20 be exercised and the user of the said
land for the purpose of dumping of solid waste, may be discontinued. A report
was submitted as filed by the Designated Officer and Deputy Director of Town
Planning, in which while recording objections of the petitioners, it was suggested
that the existing designation of the land for residential purposes should not be
Page 19 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
altered. However, by a notification dated 2 December, 2009, the State
Government in the Urban Development Department exercised powers under
Section 20(4) and sanctioned the modification by which the land in question was
designated as an existing compost depot, instead and in place of a residential zone.
It is in these circumstances, the Court considering the provisions of Section 20(1)
of the MRTP Act did not find any illegality and infirmity in the decision of the
State Government when the Court made the following observations:-
“9. Section 20(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 empowers the State Government to embark upon a revision of a
regional plan at any point after the expiry of ten years of the coming into
operation of the plan. Sub-section (2) of section 20 has a non obstante
provision by which, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
the State Government may at any time after a regional plan has come into
operation, make any modification in such plan in the manner thereafter
provided, if in the opinion of the State Government, such a modification is
necessary for the balanced development of the region, for which such plan has
been prepared and approved. In sub-section (3), the State Government is
required to publish a notice in the Official Gazette announcing its intention
to make the modification specified in the notice and to invite objections or
suggestions with respect to the modification. Sub-section (3) requires a notice
to be published in the manner stipulated. Under sub-section (4), the State
Government after considering objections and suggestions in respect of the
draft modification under sub-section (2) may approve a modification of the
regional plan with such amendments, if any, as it may think fit and has to
publish a notification in the Official Gazette stating that the modification has
been approved.
10. In the present case, it is an admitted position that Gat No. 263 was
used by the Lonavala Municipal Council as a dumping ground for nearly sixty
years. In view of the order passed by a Division Bench on 24 June, 2008, the
Municipal Council would have been required to cease the use of the land after
the expiry of six months unless in the meantime, a modification in respect of
the designation of the land was approved. The State Government invited
objections to its proposal to amend the Regional Plan. The report of the
Deputy Director, Town Planning could, at the highest, be that of a
recommending authority and would not bind the State Government. The
State Government before it issues a final notification under section 20(4), is
required to consider suggestions and objections. The notification recites that
this process has been duly completed and that the report submitted by the
Deputy Director has been considered. There is no warrant in the law to read a
further requirement of the State Government furnishing an additional
opportunity of being heard. Once suggestions and objections have been
invited and the objections of persons such as the Petitioners in response to the
notice issued by the State Government under section 20(3) were considered,
Page 20 of 21
10 July 2026

906-WP 2879-13.DOC
it was thereafter for the State Government after considering those objections
and suggestions to decide whether a modification of the residential plan
should be approved. That process was completed. In the circumstances, we do
not find any merit in the challenge to the final notification issued by the State
Government under section 20(4) on 2 December, 2009.”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, the aforesaid decision would not assist the petitioner, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. On the contrary, the decision clearly shows that
it is ultimately the State Government which is required to take appropriate
decision. It is not the ratio of the said decision that the State Government cannot
be guided by the recommendation of the Deputy Director of the Town Planning.
In fact, once it was found that recommendation of the Town Planning
Department were not correct, the State Government in a given case examining all
the parameters and for reasons acceptable in law and on record of the State
Government, it can exercise its powers in public interest and accordingly, the user
of the said land was designated for such public purpose, in exercise of powers
under Section 20 of the MRTP Act. Thus, the decision in fact supports the case of
the State Government, that it is the State Government which is the ultimate
custodian of the requirements of Town Planning in larger public interest, is what
is paramount in the State Government exercising powers under Sections 20(3)
and (4) of the MRTP Act.
32. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the petition.
The petition is an abuse of process of law. It is accordingly dismissed. We,
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
VILAS
RANE
Date:
2026.07.18
19:29:53
+0530
PRASHANT
VILAS
RANE
however, refrain from imposing any costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 21 of 21
10 July 2026
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)