Development permission cannot be refused on a mere contemplated plan revision without concrete material or an existing draft plan.

A planning authority cannot refuse development permission merely because a revision of the development plan is contemplated; concrete material is required, and the statutory duty to have due regard to draft or final plans does not exclude other relevant material. On the facts, the municipal commissioner's refusal was unsustainable because no draft revised development plan existed when permission was rejected. The appellate authority was justified in granting sanction with conditions, since the order was made in public interest and the sanctioned plan was not inconsistent with the later published draft revised plan. The challenge to the grant of development permission therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a planning authority could refuse development permission merely on the ground that revision of the development plan was contemplated, and whether the appellate authority was justified in granting sanction with conditions under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

Analysis: The expression in Section 46 requiring due regard to draft or final plans or sanctioned proposals does not exclude consideration of other relevant material, but a refusal of permission cannot rest only on a bare proposal for revision or a contemplated draft plan. An order rejecting development permission must be supported by concrete material. On the facts, no draft revised development plan existed when the municipal commissioner rejected the plan, so the refusal was not sustainable. The appellate authority's order granting permission with conditions was also made with public interest in view, as a substantial portion of the land was reserved for recreation and green space and the sanctioned plan was not inconsistent with the later published draft revised plan.

Conclusion: The refusal of development permission on the stated ground was unjustified, and the appellate sanction with conditions was valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the grant of development permission failed, and the appeal and connected special leave petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A development permission cannot be refused on a mere contemplated revision of the development plan in the absence of concrete material or an existing draft revised plan, though other relevant material may be considered under the planning statute.

---