State Government retains absolute discretion under Section 20(4) MRTP Act to reject regional plan modifications despite no public objections.

The Petitioner, a real estate developer and power of attorney holder for various landowners, sought to develop 190 acres of land in the villages of Kesnand, Wadebolhai, and Siraswadi in the Pune region

Under the Regional Plan sanctioned in 1997, these lands were designated as "Agricultural" or "No-Development Zone"

The Petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 20 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), seeking to modify the plan to "Residential Zone"

Despite a preliminary notification inviting objections under Section 20(3)—to which no public objections were received—the Director of Town Planning (DTP) recommended rejection on the grounds that selective conversion would result in "spot zoning"

The State Government subsequently rejected the modification proposal on July 29, 2010, and dismissed a review application on September 30, 2011

1. Whether the State Government is legally bound to approve a modification to a Regional Plan under Section 20(4) of the MRTP Act simply because no objections or suggestions were received following a notification under Section 20(3)

2. Whether the State Government is permitted to rely on the expert technical remarks of the Director of Town Planning (DTP) regarding "spot zoning" when such authorities are not explicitly mentioned in Section 20 of the MRTP Act

Section 20(2) empowers the State to modify a plan if necessary for "balanced development." Section 20(4) grants the State absolute discretion, stating it "may approve" modifications with amendments as it "may think fit"

The court also applied the doctrine that town planning must prioritize larger public interest over private commercial motives, as reinforced by the principles in Yashwant Anna Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra regarding the prevention of "urban chaos" and "haphazard concretisation"

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the lack of public objections mandated an approval of the zoning change. It held that Section 20(4) confers absolute discretion upon the State Government, which includes the power to "decide not to grant approval"

The Court reasoned that the DTP and ADTP are expert authorities and "custodians of effective town planning"; thus, their technical remarks regarding "spot zoning" (converting isolated patches of green land for commercial use) are paramount

The Court emphasized that a regional plan's intent to preserve green/agricultural zones would be defeated if the government succumbed to private commercial interests

It further noted that the Petitioner’s practice of acquiring POAs to flip agricultural land for profit was "antithetical to systematic town planning" and would lead to "uncontrolled concretisation" and "high degree of urban disorder"

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, characterizing it as an "abuse of process of law," though it refrained from imposing costs