By- Ishita Pancholi


Judgement Date: 07/08/2020

Judges: Indu Malhotra & Indira Banerjee JJ.


The trust, had filed an application in which it mentioned the State Government to address an inappropriate section or entry (as the inner road to the Trust) for the sake of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra dismissed the proposal and held that the Pune Municipal Corporation is the proprietor/owner in regard to the land. The High Court excused the writ petition testing the said petition passed by the Government and held that the land in question had vested under Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act. In this way, the Trust moved towards the Supreme Court.


This appeal is against a judgment and an order dated 15.9.2008 passed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court excusing Writ Petition of 2008 filed by the appealing party, testing a request, whereby the State Government would not authorize change of any Scheme under the arrangements/provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter alluded to as the Regional and Town Planning Act.


The finding that the Pune Municipal Corporation was the proprietor of the land is plainly in opposition to legal records and bears a resemblance to patent mistake. Regardless, the reprimanded request is absolutely vague without any murmur of the lawful prerequisites claimed to have not been agreed to.

The perception in the decried order, that it couldn’t be expected that the appellant Trust would concede authorization to other plot holders of Plot No.473B is theoretical and approximated, disregarding the use of the empty land (Plot No.473 B-4) for a very long while as likewise the legal records including the Award of the Arbitrator. Regardless, none of the proprietors of the nearby plots had brought up any criticism regarding the change.

Besides, the consideration of the specialists had appropriately been attracted to the express terms of the desire of Sm. Indira Devi giving the rudimentary rights to proprietors of contiguous plots of access through the plot held by her.

On the off chance that the Planning Authority felt it important to give approach streets, it was officeholder upon it to procure land as per the, endless supply of remuneration to its proprietors or on the other hand buy the equivalent by provisions.


SC held that the right to property is as yet a constitutional/fundamental right and a human right, emphasized the Supreme Court while permitting an appeal filed by Hari Krishna Mandir Trust in the matter of a land dispute with the Pune Municipal Corporation.

[1] Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 631.

Case Notes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: