Vedant Estate & Properties v. Chief Executive Officer, Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

2. This writ petition challenges inaction on the part of Respondent No.1, who is the planning authority in the case on hand, in issuing occupation certificate in respect of four buildings constructed by the Petitioner. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that instead of issuing the occupation certificate, Respondent No.1 has issued a communication, keeping the Petitioner's application for occupation certificate on hold, purportedly on the basis of a stand taken by PWD, Pune that one of the four buildings is affected by a proposed district road. This communication was followed by an order, requiring realignment of the proposed road in the proposed development plan by pursuing the matter with PWD and only proposing a partial occupation certificate in the meanwhile. These communications/orders are also the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. Neither in the impugned communications/orders of Respondent No.1 nor at the hearing held before this Court today, is Respondent No.1 in a position to point out any proposal of the purported district road either in a sanctioned development plan or even in a draft development plan published under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”). On the other hand, what we find from the record produced by the Petitioner before this Court is that the Petitioner had duly obtained all requisite permissions from various statutory authorities, such as a permission under Section 18 of the MRTP Act, N.A. permission, environmental clearance, etc. It is not disputed that based on these, a commencement certificate was duly issued by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner for construction of all four buildings. The Petitioner, after completing construction in accordance with this certificate, applied for occupation certificate. At that stage, by its communication dated 16 September 2019, Respondent No.1 called for some compliance on the part of the Petitioner. It is also not in dispute that this compliance was duly made by the Petitioner. Two commutations were, thereafter, addressed by the Petitioner in that behalf to Respondent No.1, namely, letters dated 22 October 2019 and 16 June 2020. Despite this compliance and its communication, Respondent No.1, as noted above, has abstained and continues to abstain from issuing occupation certificate demanded by the Petitioner. This, as we have noted above, was purportedly on the footing that the PWD had communicated to Respondent No.1 that there was a proposal of a district road, which could affect one of the four buildings.

4. The Petitioner having already complied with the applicable provisions of MRTP Act, including procurement of a planning permission from Respondent No.1 and having constructed buildings in accordance with this planning permission, Respondent No.1 cannot withhold issuance of an occupation certificate. Besides, as we have noted above, the basis on which the occupation certificate is being withheld, namely, proposal of a district road affecting the construction, does not appear to be justified since, even according to Respondent No.1, no such proposal is reflected either in a draft development plan or a sanctioned development plan.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Rao and Others vs. State of Maharashtra[1] has considered a similar fact-situation, where planning permission was denied on the ground of a proposal to earmark the affected property as a recreational ground with suitable internal network of roads during revision of the development plan which was in the offing. The Supreme Court observed that there was no draft revised plan, even according to the planning authority, in the case before it; and the latter was not justified in merely relying upon a proposal for preparation of a draft revised plan. The Supreme Court held that rejection of a development plan submitted by the owner of a land should be supported by some concrete material; in the absence of such material, it would be improper to reject his plan on the ground either that there was a proposal for such plan or that a revision to that effect was under contemplation. 1 1988 AIR 712 The observations made by the Supreme Court are clearly apposite in the facts of the present case. What appears from the stand adopted by PWD in the present case is that there is a proposal to revise the draft development plan. Such proposal itself is not, however, reflected in any draft revised plan published by the State under the provisions of MRTP Act. Merely on the basis of a proposal such as this, neither a planning permission nor an occupation certificate, the developer having duly obtained the planning permission, could be withheld. Besides this issue, there does not appear to be any other objection to the occupation certificate sought by the Petitioner. It is not the case of Respondent No.1 that there is any non-compliance on the part of the Petitioner of any provision of the planning permission.

6. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute and the petition is allowed by directing Respondent No.1 to forthwith issue occupation certificate for all four buildings constructed by the Petitioner, if there is no other objection for issuance of such certificate.

7. This order will be this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a (MADHAV JAMDAR, J.) (S.C. GUPTE, J.)