Chandrachud, while making his submissions before the division bench of Justice B N Srikrishna and Justice S S Parkar who are hearing petitions in the Pune land scam case, said PMC is an autonomous body and the commissioner has his own powers to order the shifting of the land.pChandrachud said the then commissioner Ramnath Jha was delegated powers under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and that the Commissioner had shifted the plot 15 kilometers away on the orders of the government in 1996. At this point, Justice Srikrishna demanded to know from Chandrachud whether he was arguing for the commissioner or for the PMC as he (Chandrachud) was all along trying to justify the Commissioner's act.

Chandrachud toldthe court that on May 8, 1979, a purchase notice of the plot at Prabhat Road was issued and confirmed on December 5, 1979 by the government. On May 9, 1980, an application was made for declaration of the land, which came through on July 14, 1981. And on December 18, 1982, the draft development plans were published in which reservation for a garden for mentioned.

In 1982 itself, the corporation's body General Body of the PMC passed a resolution stating that the plot was reserved neither for a primary school nor for a garden. In 1987, a new development plan came into force introducing reservation for a primary school.

Chandrachud pointed out that since acquisition of the plot has lapsed in April 1996 itself, reservation lapsed as well. Justice Srikishna pointed out that if acquisition lapsed, it did not mean that reservation ended as well. The judge added that if acquisition has indeed lapsed, it is difficult to explain how the CM stepped into the picture. ``If you want to withdraw acquisition proceedings,the planning authorities should be contacted. But in this case the concerned authorities were not contacted,'' observed Justice Srikrishna.

The judge further told Chandrachud that he was trying to show that the PMC's act is bona fide. If no mala fide has been committed, the petitions will fail, added the Justice.

Virendra Tulzapurkar, counsel for the affected tenants of the multi-storied building which was built by Vyas on the plot, told the court that there is no reservation on the plot.