RAJKUMAR ADLAKHA AND ANR.versusTHE SECRETARY, URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.

                                                                                1/7                     1 WP-11500-19.odt

                                                   Salgaonkar

MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
                 Digitally signed by MANDIRA
                 MILIND SALGAONKAR
                 Date: 2026.06.20 13:21:58 +0530
                                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                                   WRIT PETITION NO.11500 OF 2019

                                                   Rajkumar Adlakha & Anr.                       ..   Petitioners
                                                                     Versus
                                                   The    Secretary,   Urban              Land   ..   Respondents
                                                   Development Dept. & Ors.

                                                                                      …

                                                   Dr.V.V.Tulzpurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Yashodhan V.
                                                   Divekar, Mr.Rohan Karande and Mr.Shubham Jadhav i/b
                                                   Divekar & Co. for the Petitioners.

                                                   Mr.Rishikesh M. Pethe for the PMC/Respondent.

                                                   Smt.Neha S. Bhide, G.P. with Mr.Kedar B. Dighe, Addl.G.P. with
                                                   Smt.P.J.Gavhane, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent.

                                                                       CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                                              MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
                                                                       DATE : 17th JUNE, 2026
                                                                            ...
                                                   ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bharati Dangre, J.)

                                                   1.       The Petitioners, the owners of a land bearing CTS No.114
                                                   situated at village Koregaon Park, intended to develop the
                                                   same for housing the residences of their executives and
                                                   employees.      According to them, the Petitioners applied for
                                                   requisite     permissions   and    during     this   process,     gained
                                                   knowledge that a land is reserved for playground in the Final
                                                   Development plan bearing Reservation No.PG 97.


                                                   2.       The pleadings in the Petition, assert that in the year
                                                   2013, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation proposed a
                              2/7                   1 WP-11500-19.odt

Revised Draft Development Plan under Section 26 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for
short, “MRTP Act”), which was published indicating that the
land is sought to be reserved for playground.
      As this plan did not receive the Fnal sanction,
Respondent     No.3-the      State     Government      appointed          a
Committee under Section 162 of the MRTP Act and the
Committee deleted the Reservation No.PG 97 and suggested
changes in the Revised Draft Development Plan and the
Petition has annexed the modiFcations and changes that were
published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette vide
ModiFcation No.M 6.13.
      It is this NotiFcation, on the basis of which, the Petitioner
make a request for deleting the reservation, as it is pointed out
to us that justiFcation for deletion of the proposed reservation
and continuation of the existing scenario was promoted for
encouraging the use of the land for residential purpose and
this is so reHected in the minutes of the Committee headed by
the   Commissioner,        Municipal   Corporation,     Pune      dated
06/09/2015.


3.    The Petition has also annexed the NotiFcation issued by
the   Government      of     Maharashtra,      Urban    Development
Department on 05/01/2017, with reference to the Revised
Draft Development Plan published by the Pune Municipal
Corporation    for   the    original   limit   of   Pune    Municipal
Corporation under Section 26(1) of the MRTP Act.                        The
NotiFcation set out that after considering the suggestions and
objections to the said Draft Development Plan received, the
                           3/7                    1 WP-11500-19.odt

Planning Committee appointed under Section 28(2) of the Act
has submitted its report to the Planning Authority, but the
Planning Authority did not take any decision on the report of
the Planning Committee nor did it submit the Draft
Development Plan to the State Government within the
stipulated time limit. This constrained the State Government
to appoint the Committee to complete the legal procedure
required under the Act and submit the said Development Plan
to the Government for sanction under Section 30.
     As per the NotiFcation of 05/01/2017, after considering
the report of the Planning Committee and the matters related
to it, the Committee made some modiFcations and changes to
the Draft Development Plan under Section 28(4), which came
to be published in the Government Gazette on 26/09/2015
before submitting the Development Plan for sanction under
Section 30.
     In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of
Section 30, the Committee which has submitted the Draft
Development     Plan   alongwith   the   modiFcations         to      the
Government of Maharashtra for sanction, the report was also
called from the Director of Town Planning and thereafter, after
making necessary enquiries and after consulting the Director
of Town Planning as contemplated under sub-section (1) of
Section 31 of the Act, the Government expressed its opinion
that it should sanction a part of the Draft Development Plan
and Draft Development Control Regulations of Pune Municipal
Corporation with the modiFcations set out in Schedule-A.
     As far as the property of the Petitioner is concerned, the
entry in Schedule ‘A’ speciFcally reads thus :-
                                 4/7                        1 WP-11500-19.odt



SM-329 6   PG-97 Koregaon   M 6.13 PG-97      Reservation   PR-97 Reservation is
                 Park              deleted and included     Reinstated     as   per
                                   in Residential Zone      published plan U/S 26 of
                                                            the MR&TP Act, 1966



4.   The aforesaid entry, therefore, clearly indicate that vide
the said modiFcation PG-97 (Reservation) was deleted, and
the subject property was included in residential zone, with a
speciFc remark that the “Reservation is reinstated as per
published plan under Section 26 of the MRTP Act.”


5.   The grievance of the Petitioners focuses on this
modiFcation and it is the speciFc contention advanced on
behalf of the Petitioners, that the Petitioners addressed
communication to the State of Maharashtra, pointing out the
effect of deletion of Reservation No.97 of CTS No.114 Koregaon
Park under the Revised Development Plan dated 05/01/2017
and prayed that reinstatement of the Reservation vide
modiFcation No.SM 329 is arbitrary, as it ignored the
concurrent Fndings of the Committee and Director of Town
Planning and it was speciFcally asserted that the State
Government, without any rhyme or reason, ignored the said
suggestions and published the Fnal Development Plan on
05/01/2017, reinstating the Reservation No. PG 97 and this
was speciFcally objected to.
     A request was, therefore, made to the State Government
to direct the Pune Municipal Corporation to                              initiate
proceedings under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act for deleting
Reservation No.PG 97 and incorporating the said land in
residential zone.
                             5/7                  1 WP-11500-19.odt

6.     The   learned    senior     counsel   Mr.Tulzapurkar           has
submitted that inspite of clear indication in form of
suggestions of the Committee and the recommendations of the
Director of Town Planning, when the modiFcations and
changes with regard to the deletion of Reservation No.PG 97
upon the said land was approved and the land was directed to
be reinstated into the residential zone, and there is no reason
or justiFcation offered by the State Government as to why it
did not abide by the same.


7.     In the reply afFdavit Fled by the State Government also,
we do not Fnd any speciFc justiFcation being offered to that
effect. The learned Additional Government Advocate Mr.Dighe
also could not offer a speciFc justiFcation, except for insisting
that ultimately it is the power of the State Government to
frame the Development Plan under Section 26 of the MRTP
Act.
       Our attention is invited to a communication              dated
02/11/2018     addressed     to    the   Commissioner,    Municipal
Corporation and this is in regards to the subject, ‘Deletion of
Reservation No. PG 97 of CTS No.114 Koregaon Park, Pune
under the Revised Development Plan dated 05/01/2017.’
Relying upon the said letter, it is sought to be justiFed before
us that now the ball is in the court of the Commissioner i.e. the
Planning Authority and in any case, unless and until the
machinery is set rolling by the Corporation under Section 37,
nothing can progress.


8.     Perusal of the scheme under the MRTP Act, including the
speciFc provision for modiFcation of Fnal development plan, as
                           6/7                 1 WP-11500-19.odt

contained in Section 37 clearly indicate that where a
modiFcation of any part of or any proposal made in the Fnal
Development Plan is contemplated, it is a Planning Authority,
who may or when so directed by the State Government,
publish in the OfFcial Gazette, a notice inviting objections and
suggestions in respect of the proposed modiFcation within the
timelines set out in the said Section and the procedure to be
followed is clearly carved out under Section 37, which would
result in modiFcation in the Fnal Development Plan.
     Though at this stage, we are not entitled to pronounce
upon the legality or otherwise of the action for the State
Government, one thing is clear that the development plan is
now Fnally published and the only possibility which is
available is to seek its modiFcation by adopting the procedure
under Section 37. It is ultimately for the Planning Authority as
well as the State Government to consider the proposal and
once again the State Government, may or may not, Fnds itself
in agreement with the recommendations of the Committee and
the Director of the Planning Authority, but in any case, for this
purpose, the Planning Authority must take appropriate
decision whether to process the proposal of the Petitioners
seeking modiFcation.
     We, therefore, direct the Corporation to initiate a
proposal for modiFcation for deletion of Reservation No.PG 97
of CTS No.114 of village Koregaon Park under the Revised
Development Plan dated 05/01/2017, which shall result into
the procedure being initiated under Section 37, resulting into
the proposal being approved or it being defeated.
                           7/7                 1 WP-11500-19.odt

      Since much time has lapsed since the Petitioners made a
request to the State Government, we expect the Planning
Authority to initiate the proposal expeditiously, and in any
case, within a period of four (4) months from today.


9.    With the aforesaid direction, the Petition stands disposed
of.



(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)              (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)