MRTP Act Amendment Bill 20215 | Town Planning Scheme Provisions Overview @MahaTPC скачать в хорошем качестве

MRTP Act Amendment Bill 20215 | Town Planning Scheme Provisions Overview @MahaTPC

Takeaways from the MRTP Act 2025 Amendments For decades, urban development in Maharashtra has been hampered by a trifecta of bureaucratic inertia, convoluted town planning schemes, and a persistent gap between planning "intention" and ground-level execution. For landowners and developers, the path to project fruition has often felt like an indefinite wait. The MRTP Act 2025 amendments, however, signal a profound shift toward modernizing these systems. By institutionalizing administrative accountability and reimagining fiscal structures, these changes aim to catalyze growth while ensuring technical precision. As we analyze this latest series of amendments, eight critical takeaways emerge as essential knowledge for every urban stakeholder. 1. Front-Loading Technical Expertise: The TPO and the Section 67 Fallback Under the new Section 60A, the Town Planning Officer (TPO) is no longer a late-stage appointee. Planning Authorities are now mandated to appoint a TPO simultaneously with the "Declaration of Intention." This ensures that critical technical work—including survey analysis, the design of reconstituted plots, and initial value determinations—is baked into the draft from day one. Crucially, Section 67 introduces a necessary "stick" to ensure compliance: should a Planning Authority fail to publish the draft scheme within the specified or extended timeline, the Divisional Joint Director of Town Planning (or a nominee not below the rank of Assistant Director) is empowered to take over and complete the process. This takeover mechanism ensures that local administrative delays cannot indefinitely stall urban progress. 2. Fiscal Sustainability and Value Capture Financing The amendments to Sections 64 and 99 represent a fundamental "funding mechanism shift" aimed at reducing the financial burden on original plot owners. Traditionally, schemes relied heavily on incremental contributions—essentially taxing landowners for the value added by the plan. The new Section 64 (Clause G-1) introduces a sophisticated value-capture model where income generated from the sale of "saleable land" within the scheme is used to set off or reduce these contributions. By leveraging the scheme’s own commercial potential, the state moves toward a more equitable fiscal model that prioritizes the liquidity of the original inhabitants. 3. Administrative Accountability: The Deemed Sanction Revolution To combat chronic red tape, Section 86(1) introduces uncompromising timelines for government decision-making. The state is now bound by a maximum window of two months for a Preliminary Scheme and three months for a Final Scheme. If the government fails to issue a decision within these periods, the scheme is "deemed sanctioned." This revolutionary provision extends to legacy projects as well; any scheme pending at the time the 2025 amendment takes effect is subject to a six-month window before deemed sanction applies. This creates a high-stakes environment where silence no longer equates to delay, but to automatic approval. 4. Decentralized Adjudication and Legal Clarity Efficiency in town planning often relies on the ability to resolve minor discrepancies without escalating to superior authorities. The amendment to Section 72 significantly empowers the Arbitrator by increasing the monetary limit for correcting non-substantial errors or omissions from a meager ₹2 Lakh to ₹2 Crore. This hundred-fold increase allows for rapid local resolution of valuation or clerical adjustments. Furthermore, Section 68A provides much-needed legal clarity by explicitly excluding land already "vested" in the appropriate authority from certain draft scheme provisions, thereby reducing redundant litigation and streamlining the transition of ownership. 5. Strategic Interoperability: Automatic DP and RP Alignment A common pain point in urban governance is the conflict between local Town Planning Schemes (TPS) and broader Master Plans. Section 68A(4) introduces a vital "interoperability" clause: any modifications necessitated by a sanctioned TPS are now "deemed to be modified" in the Development Plan (DP) or Regional Plan (RP) automatically. This ensures plan consistency across all levels of government, eliminating the need for separate, time-consuming modification processes and ensuring that the local scheme and the regional vision operate in a single, unified framework. 6. Democratizing the Process: Majority-Led Scheme Withdrawal In a move toward greater owner agency and transparency, Section 87 introduces a democratic safeguard. If a majority of landowners within a proposed scheme area demand the withdrawal of a TPS before the draft is sanctioned, the Planning Authority now possesses the power to withdraw it. This ensures that town planning remains a collaborative endeavor rather than a top-down mandate, forcing authorities to remain accountable to the community they are designing for and ensuring that only schemes with broad consensus move forward.