Jasmin Agro Crops Pvt Ltd v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda) And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12847 OF 2025 M/s. Jasmin Agro Crops Pvt. Ltd.

.... Petitioner V/s.

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), Mumbai and Ors.

.... Respondents Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare a/w. Mr. Shubham Choudhar i/b. Mr. Nikhil Adkine for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Anjali Helekar a/w. Ms. Anu Kaladharan and Mr. Paras Jadhav for Respondent No.1 - MMRDA.

Smt. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent - State. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK AND SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATED : 23rd MARCH, 2026 P.C. :- (PER : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) 1) The instant Petition is filed seeking direction to the Respondent No.1 to decide a Representation dated 16/04/2024 thereby praying for rectification of an error in the Final Regional Plan Map for the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) whereby the Petitioner's private lands at Village Sonavale, Taluka Ambernath, District Thane have been shown as "Forest zone".

2) The Respondent No.1 responded the Petition with its affidavitin-reply. Therein, the Respondent No.1 - State has dealt with the correspondence entertained between the parties. However, at the end, it is stated that the matter shall be processed on receipt of the documents 1/3

required from the Petitioner for deciding his Representation. 3) Heard Mr. Sugdare, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Helekar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 - MMRDA and Smt. Deshpande, learned AGP for the Respondent - State. 4) It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a Private Limited Company and owner of land bearing Survey No.33/6/B, Survey No.33/6/C, Survey No.33/6/D, Survey No.33/7/B, Survey No.33/7/D and Survey No.33/9 aggregating to a total of 86,700 sq. meters situated at Village Sonavale, Taluka Ambernath, District Thane. In the draft Regional Plan, the subject Property was shown to be reserved under Green Zone but erroneously included in "Forest Zone". Aggrieved by that error, the Petitioner has filed the said Representation. 5) Ms. Deshpande, learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, made a statement that the said Representation will be decided within a period of six weeks from the communication of this order.

6) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is in agreement with the said statement.

7) In view thereof, the Petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the following Order :- (a) The Petition is partly allowed.

(b) The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall decide the 2/3

Representation of the Petitioner dated 16/04/2024 within six weeks from the date of communication of this Order. (c) The said Representation to be decided on its own merits. 8) Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.03.25 17:37:05 +0530 3/3