Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Dec-10-2013
..... 194 while respondent 4 is its chairman. it is also a district sports committee. the respondent 1 state has nominated the trustees on said trust. respondent 5, the registered partnership firm undertaking the development of the subject sports center as per its concession agreement with the respondent 2, has been added as party on 12.9.2007. 3. this court ..... in certain contingencies, the provision there-under is permitted to be modified, that too after following the necessary prescribed procedure. the planning process under the mrtp act i.e. 1966 act is found to be quite an elaborate process. a number of town planners, architects and officers of the planning authority, and wherever necessary, those of the state government participate ..... development charges, said respondent again seeks the building permission for shopping plazas a and b. thus the respondent 2 again seeks building permission for buildings a and b and this act also militates with defence of deemed sanction. plea of deemed sanction must be certain and all necessary ingredients must be disclosed and established. 18. in this background, the ..... finance, build, transfer (fbt) and build, operate and transfer (bot) only in case of petitioner. similarly, it permitted commercial user also contrary to the reservation in dp under 1966 act. said gr also envisages execution of a memorandum of understanding (mou) between petitioner and respondent 2/3 finalizing the terms and conditions of development and approval thereto by the director .....Tag this Judgment!