Finding that the petitioners would have an opportunity to echo all their grievances, if any, in a manner known to law at the appropriate time, including before the Arbitrator, after the final Mahalunge-Maan Preliminary Town Planning Scheme sanctioned under Section 86(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) is notified, the Bombay High Court refrained from deciding the petition on merits calling it to be premature.

While the petitioners sought to challenge the Mahalunge-Maan final town planning scheme, prepared by an Arbitrator under Section 72(6) of the Act, they claimed that they were denied compensation for their lands acquired for public purposes under the Scheme, without following the procedure outlined in either the Act or the Right to Fair Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice G.S Kulkarni and Justice R.N Laddha observed that “the State has to award compensation when acquiring private property for public use or that taking away someone’s land in exercising its power of eminent domain in expropriating private property for public use as without determining and providing compensation is against Article 300A of the Constitution of India”.
Advocate Madhavi Ayyappan appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocate Rajiv Chavan appeared for the Respondent.
After considering the submission, the Bench noted from a perusal of Section 60 of the MRTP Act, that a Scheme must be prepared for any area within the jurisdiction of the planning authority and published in the official gazette along with a copy of the plan.
“There is no disagreement that the PMRDA suggested changes/modifications to the draft town planning Scheme No.1 (Mahalunge-Maan) vide Resolution No.3. There is also no disagreement that these changes/modifications will substantially change/alter the final plots and assessment details of the Scheme, requiring a new start of arbitration proceedings”, added the Bench.
The Bench further admitted that the PMRDA recommended the creation of the Tribunal of Appeal on May 20, 2022, whereas on July 26, 2022, the Director of Town Planning, MS, issued a communication stating that it would be appropriate to establish the Tribunal of Appeal after the draft Mahalunge-Maan TPS-1 was approved and published.
The Bench also recorded that the PMRDA started a variation to TPS-1 under Section 92 and to that effect has provided a draft under Section 61(1) to the Director of Town Planning for consultation.
“There is also no disagreement that after the approval of the draft Scheme (first variation), the petitioners will have an opportunity to be heard by the Arbitrator”, added the Bench.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition, observing that the petitioners would have an opportunity to echo all their grievances, if any, in a manner known to law at the appropriate time, including before the Arbitrator, after the final Scheme is notified.
Cause Title: Chandrakant Uttam Kolekar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.


Bombay High CourtJustice G.S. KulkarniJustice R.N. Laddha

Pankaj Bajpai