KISHAN KEDIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
LAWS(SC)-2016-7-130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 21,2016

Kishan Kedia Appellant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) In view of the order that is being proposed to be passed we do not consider it necessary to burden this order by a detailed recital of the voluminous facts. Suffice it will be to notice that under the Development Plan in question (under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966) for residential zones (5.6.3.1) a 30 meters Green Belt from the high flood level on both banks of Indrayani River was proposed. The Development permission as well as N.A. permission granted to the appellant was in a fact situation where the high flood level line was not drawn. When the matter reached the table of the Departmental Minister by way of appeal against an intermediary order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the State Government by a very exhaustive order set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and allowed the appeal of the appellant. However, in paragraph 3 of the operative order, details of which are noticed below, the State Government constituted a Committee to consider the question of drawing the highest flood line and on that basis to take further action as may be necessary under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the MRTP Act") "3. Main Complaint of Respondent Mr. Balaji Tambe and Atma Santulan Village Pvt. Ltd. is that the Flood Control Line which is demarcated by Irrigation Department of Indrayani River, said line is not shown in regional Plan, therefore flood control line is not practically demarcated on ground while granting N.A. permission whether Flood Control Line and Line of Green Belt tallies with each other Similarly constructions which are in existence disregarding flood control line and which are to be constructed in future, should not suffer damage, in order that for demarcation of flood control line and for suggesting measures with a view to avoid damage from flood. I am giving order for formation of committee as under: (A) Commissioner, Pune Division. (B) Chief Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Pune (C) Asstt. Director, Town Planning, Pune. Above officers should consider highest Flood level line and shall take legal action to point out said line in Regional Development Plan and for that purpose approval of government be obtained under M.R.T.P. Act. Similarly by taking measures for not causing damage of constructions due to flood, its implementation be carried out."
(3.) It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Committee submitted its report on 28th August, 2008 which is adverse to the appellant. The same was accepted by the Government on 29th January, 2009. It is at this stage that the appellant moved the High Court. The High Court by means of the order under challenge had caused a remand of the matter to the Collector for a fresh consideration of the matter uninfluenced by any of the facts and events that had occurred earlier.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.