Bombay High Court

SURESHCHANDRA SHANKARLAL LALWANI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: KISHORE C SANT SUSHIL M GHODESWAR

Holding

Since the draft development plan had been sanctioned by the State Government, the writ petition was not maintainable and was disposed.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a draft development plan published by the President of the Municipal Council, Jamner, arguing that the President lacked authority under the relevant town‑planning Act and that the plan should have been sanctioned by the Director of Town Planning. They also pointed to a municipal resolution stating that no land acquisition was required. The State Government, however, sanctioned the draft plan on 18 May 2012. The respondents contended that once the plan was sanctioned, the writ petition was no longer maintainable and that other legal remedies were available. The Court examined the submissions and concluded that, because the plan had already been sanctioned by the State, the writ petition could not be entertained. The Court disposed of the petition but left open the possibility for the petitioners to pursue other remedies under law.

Issues considered

What authority is required to sanction a draft development plan under the applicable town‑planning Act?
Is a draft development plan sanctioned by the President of a Municipal Council valid when the Act mandates sanction by the Director of Town Planning?
Does the State Government's sanction of the draft development plan render a writ petition challenging it non‑maintainable?
What alternative legal remedies are available to the petitioners after the plan's sanction?

Subjects

development plan
municipal council
town planning authority
writ petition
state sanction
administrative law
land acquisition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:9304-DB


                                                  *1*                      58wp9547o18


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 9547 OF 2018
                     SURESHCHANDRA SHANKARLAL LALWANI AND
                                            OTHERS
                                            VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                ...
                Shri Anand P. Bhandari h/f Shri Sancheti Rahul R., Advocate for
                the Petitioners.
                Shri Sarang P. Joshi, AGP for the Respondents/ State.
                Shri Hange Sandesh V., advocate for respondent No.2.
                                                ...


                                   CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
                                                    &
                                              SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.

                                   DATE : 04 March 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.           The    petitioners    are   challenging    the    draft

                development plan published by the President, Municipal Council,

                Jamner, in Government Gazette dated 16.07.2009. The

                petitioners have filed objection on 11.09.2009. On 08.11.2012,

                the Municipal Council passed the resolution stating that no

                acquisition is required. The petitioners thereafter, approached this

                Court by filing a petition on 10.08.2018 challenging the draft

                development plan and also for implementation of the resolution
                                 *2*                      58wp9547o18


passed by the Municipal Council. However, pending all these, on

18.05.2012, the State Government sanctioned the draft

development plan.


2.          The learned advocate Shri Bhandari appearing for

the petitioners vehemently argued that the draft development

plan was sanctioned by the President of Municipal Council, who

does not have any authority under the Act. It ought to have been

sanctioned by the Director of Town Planning under the Act.

Everything done pursuant to the draft development plan should

be declared illegal and same cannot be implemented. He further

submits that the Municipal Council itself has passed the

resolution stating that no such land is required. Therefore, it was

not appropriate for the Government to approve the draft

development plan. He, thus, prays for allowing the petition.


3.          The learned advocate Shri Hange for respondent

No.2 vehemently opposed the petition by placing on record the

affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2. He submits that once

the development plan is now sanctioned by the Government, the

petition need not be entertained as same is not maintainable

before this Court. There are remedies available to the petitioners
                                       *3*                      58wp9547o18


      either to pray for modification of the scheme or to resort to any

      other remedy provided in law.


      4.          This Court has considered the submissions of the

      parties and the reply filed by respondent No.2. Since now the

      draft development plan has already been sanctioned by the State

      Government, this Court need not entertain the writ petition. It is,

      however, kept open for the petitioners to avail remedy available

      in law if so advised. By keeping above liberty open, the Writ

      Petition stands disposed of.




kps   (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)              (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…