Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner - society filed the aforesaid petition, raising various grounds, including the ground of violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of the said Rule. On 30.07.2010, this Court granted Rule in the petition and directed the parties to maintain status quo.

7. In Writ Petition No.1991 of 2025, the petitioners are aggrieved by a declaration published by the respondent - PMC on 11.10.2004, stating that it intended to take possession of the open spaces in the layout in Walvekar Nagar, by exercising power under the said Rule, on the ground that such open spaces were being misused. It was further stated that if any person had any objection, the same be raised within one month. The petitioners in the said petition are members of Walvekar family, who are owners of open spaces in sanctioned layout. The said petitioners specifically stated that in the year 1971, the aforesaid layout was approved by PMC in respect of lands at Survey Nos.50, 52 and 53 in Pune. Open spaces were earmarked in the said approved/sanctioned layout. Thereafter, on 05.01.1987, the aforesaid DC Rules were sanctioned along with development plan and they came into effect from 05.02.1987. The petitioners stated that since the layout was sanctioned prior to the DC Rules coming into force, they obviously would not apply to the said layout.

41. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that in these cases also, the said Rule is unsustainable as it violates Article 300A of the Constitution by offering illusory compensation of ₹ 1 and also because it refers to its source of power to two provisions in the parent statute that have nothing to do with open spaces.

42. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote Rule 13.3.1.5 of the DC Rules, which reads as follows:

'13.3.1.5 Whenever called upon by the Planning Authority to do so, under provisions of Section 202, 203 of BPMC Act areas under roads and open space in Bye-law Nos. 12.3 to 12.5, 13.3 shall be handed over to the Planning Authority after development of the same for which nominal amount (of ₹ 1) shall be paid bý the Planning Authority. In case of the owners who undertake to develop the open spaces WP_5838_10 & ors.doc for bona fide reasons as recreational community open spaces, the Authority may permit the owner to develop the open space unless the Authority is convinced that there is misuse of open spaces in which case the Authority shall take over the land.'

48. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the open spaces do find mention in the said DC Rules and that they being the 'lungs' of the city, are required to be kept open and developed by the planning authority, is also found to be unsustainable. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to Rule 13.3.1.3 of the said DC Rules, which reads as follows:

'13.3.1.3 The structures to be permitted in the resedential open spaces shall be as per the following purposes:

57. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned Rule 13.3.1.5 of the DC Rules is held unconstitutional, as it violates Article 300A of the Constitution and hence, it is struck down. It is also found to be ultra vires of the BPMC Act, now MMC Act. Consequently, the impugned declarations published in newspapers by respondent - PMC are quashed and set aside. We further direct that all consequential actions taken by the respondent