Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice R G Avachat and Justice Neeraj P Dhote ordered to issue a notice to the principal secretary and director of the Town Planning Department, the District Collector and Chhatrapati Municipal Corporation commissioner after a petition was filed challenging the revised development plan of the city.
The revised development plan was challenged through a petition regarding the reservation of a 15-meter road over the petitioners’ residential properties and open plots.
In the petition, it was stated that there was no reservation in the original draft of the development plan.
The reservation was shown in the plan without any notice or prior information or seeking objections, or suggestions from the petitioners and giving them an opportunity to be heard.
The next hearings have been placed after two weeks. There will be a consolidated hearing regarding the petitions related to the reservations in the plan. Nilesh Dineshchandra Gattani and 14 other petitioners are residents of gut numbers 100, 106, and 126 in Deoalai.
In the petition filed through adv Chandrakant Thorat, it was stated that the city’s original draft development plan, dated March 7, 2024, did not show any road reservations from the mentioned guts. However, the revised development plan dated August 8, 2024, indicates a reservation for a 15-meter road passing through all three guts in Deoalai.
Notably, the proposed road is shown to pass through the petitioners' residential properties and open plots while the revised development plan indicates this reservation without providing any notice or prior information, seeking objections, or suggestions or giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.
Despite the petitioners filing objections with the appointed officer of the draft development plan and the Town Planning Development Secretary, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioners have filed a petition in the bench.
Box
Combined hearing on petitions
While the original draft development plan of the city did not include any reservations, the revised development plan shows such reservations. Several petitions challenging the reservations have been filed. As a result, the bench indicated during the hearing of the above petition that a combined hearing would be conducted for the petitions related to reservations in the plan.