The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) allowed the writ petition filed by a cooperative housing society, setting aside a communication that plots remained reserved for higher education despite their regularization under the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments Act, 2001.
The writ arose from the Deputy Director of Town Planning’s communication dated 5 June 2023, which reiterated reservation of certain plots for higher education under the Revised Development Plan.
The petitioner had developed a residential layout over two survey numbers at Bidipeth, Nagpur, retaining specific plots. After regularization under the Gunthewari Act in 2016, including payment of required fees and removal of reservations, the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) issued allotment letters and delivered possession to the petitioner as lessee in late 2022. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Town Planning reasserted reservation of these plots for higher education based on an older development plan, without providing a hearing, which resulted in withholding of lease deed execution. Aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed.
The petitioner relied on earlier government resolutions, maps showing lifting of reservations, and compliance with statutory formalities under the Gunthewari Act. Respondents relied on the original Revised Development Plan reservations and contended that removal of reservations was only partial and did not include the subject plots.
The petitioner emphasized that Section 5 of the Gunthewari Act mandates that regularized Gunthewari developments stand exempted and the provisions of any development or regional plan stand modified or relaxed accordingly. They further submitted that all charges for regularization and removal of reservations had been paid and possession was lawfully delivered. The respondents argued that the reservation on the plots stood intact, thereby prohibiting lease deed execution.
The Bench comprising Justices Smt. M.S. Jawalkar and Pravin S. Patil observed that the 2015 Note Sheet of NIT records that reservations must apply only to open land, not to constructed or built-up areas, aligning with the petitioner’s case. The Court also noted the 2014 amendment to Section 156 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act clarifies that regularized Gunthewari developments are not unauthorized for purposes of the MRTP Act. The Bench further took note of an interim order in a related writ petition restraining NIT from regularizing reserved open spaces pending further orders.
The Court held that once regularized under the Gunthewari Act, any reservation in development plans affecting such plots is deemed lifted or modified. Reliance was placed on authoritative judgments affirming that regularization under this Act overrides existing reservations, and the petitioner’s unconditional payment of relevant charges and allotment confirms entitlement.
It was further held that since NIT admitted receipt of regularization charges including those for removal of reservation, no legal basis remained to withhold execution of the lease deed. The Court clarified that an earlier interim order restraining regularization of plots from open or reserved spaces was not applicable here, as the subject plots had been regularized before that order.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned communication reiterating reservation, allowed the writ petition, and directed the concerned authorities to execute the lease deed for the concerned Plot Nos. in favour of the petitioner society within four weeks.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin A. Jachak, Adv.
For Respondent No.1/State: Shri P. P. Pendke, AGP.
For Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: Shri Prakash S. Tiwari, Adv.
