Development plan reservations cannot be overridden by executive directions; statutory planning procedure governs deletion, shifting, and land use changes.

A development plan reservation for a primary school could not be deleted or shifted by executive direction or by invoking an inapplicable development control rule; alteration of such reservation had to follow the statutory procedure under the planning law, and general administrative control could not override the Act. A prior residential user under an older town planning scheme did not defeat a later reservation in the final development plan, especially after acquisition and acceptance of compensation, and the civil court could not test the acquisition in that manner. Adverse remarks against senior public officials were partly sustained, but the remarks against the Municipal Commissioner were deleted and the direction for criminal investigation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government could direct shifting or deletion of a school reservation on a final plot and permit residential development by resorting to Rule 13.5, Section 37, Section 50 or Section 154 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; (ii) whether the landowner's claimed residential user under the erstwhile town planning scheme survived against the later development plan reservation and whether the acquisition had lapsed or the civil suit was maintainable; (iii) whether the adverse remarks against the Chief Minister, the Minister of State and the Municipal Commissioner, and the direction for criminal investigation, were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Government could direct shifting or deletion of a school reservation on a final plot and permit residential development by resorting to Rule 13.5, Section 37, Section 50 or Section 154 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

Analysis: The sanctioned development plan has primacy and must ordinarily be implemented as framed. A reservation for a public amenity such as a primary school cannot be deleted or shifted by executive instruction or by invoking a development control rule beyond its limited field. Rule 13.5 permitted only a limited shifting within specified distance and within the owner's holding, not a transfer to a distant site. Deletion or alteration of a reservation required compliance with the statutory procedure under Section 37, and where the change was substantial, the stricter procedure applicable to substantial modifications had to be followed. Section 50 could operate only at the request of the appropriate authority itself, which was not the case. Section 154 conferred general administrative control and could not authorize action contrary to the Act.

Conclusion: The Government-directed deletion of reservation and the resultant development permission were illegal and unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the landowner's claimed residential user under the erstwhile town planning scheme survived against the later development plan reservation and whether the acquisition had lapsed or the civil suit was maintainable.

Analysis: The Act treats the development plan as the governing instrument for planned development, and the town planning scheme must be varied to the extent necessary to bring it in line with the final development plan. The existence of a prior residential user under the saved town planning scheme did not entitle the landowner to defeat the later reservation for a public amenity, particularly after the land had been acquired and compensation accepted. A land acquired for one public purpose does not become invalid merely because the user is later adjusted to another public purpose. The civil court had no jurisdiction to test the validity of the acquisition in the manner attempted.

Conclusion: The landowner's plea based on the erstwhile scheme was rejected, and the acquisition was held valid and complete.

Issue (iii): Whether the adverse remarks against the Chief Minister, the Minister of State and the Municipal Commissioner, and the direction for criminal investigation, were sustainable.

Analysis: The materials on record supported the inference that the public process was bent to favour a private developer connected with the Chief Minister, and the strictures against the Chief Minister and the Minister of State were warranted. The Commissioner's conduct was criticized, but the Court found no basis to attribute a personal motive sufficient to sustain criminal investigation against him. In light of the governing principles on investigation directions, a blanket order for impartial criminal investigation into whether offences had been committed could not be maintained on the record as it stood.

Conclusion: The strictures against the Chief Minister and the Minister of State were maintained, the remarks against the Municipal Commissioner were deleted, and the direction for criminal investigation was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The illegal development permission and the challenge to the public reservation failed, the demolition direction was substantially upheld, the landowner's alternative claim under the old scheme was rejected, and only limited relief was granted by deleting the remarks against the Commissioner and the criminal investigation direction while maintaining the adverse findings against the Chief Minister and the Minister of State.

Ratio Decidendi: A development plan reservation for a public amenity cannot be overridden by executive instruction or an inapplicable development control rule, and any deletion or shifting of such reservation must strictly follow the statutory procedure prescribed by the planning law.

---