Allowed

Vitthal Rajaram Chakane and Ors. v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2011WP/4481/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court declared that land reserved for a primary school in the Shrigonda Development Plan lapsed because the acquiring authority failed to initiate acquisition proceedings within the prescribed timeframe despite a statutory notice.

What did the court decide?

It was declared that the reservation of land Gat No. 939 for primary school in the approved plan is lapsed. Petitioners are at liberty to develop the property.

Vitthal Rajaram Chakane and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

WP No. 4481/11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4481 OF 2011

¶5

1.	Vitthal s/o. Rajaram Chakane, Age 58 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
2.	Rambhau s/o. Rajaram Chakne, Age 55 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
3.	Balasaheb s/o. Rajaram Chakane, Age 52 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
4.	Raichand s/o. Budhmal Metha, Age 55 yrs., Occu. Business,
5.	Niwas s/o. Shivaji Shelar, Age 44 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
6.	Vikas s/o. Shivaji Shelar, Age 52 yrs., Occu. Agriculture,
7.	Indubai Shivaji Shelar, Age 63 yrs., Occu. Household,
	All R/o. Shrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Petitioners.
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2.	The Assistant Director, Town Planning, Near Akashwani, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3.	The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Shrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Respondents.

¶6

WP No. 4481/11

¶7

¶8

Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B.S. Shinde h/f. Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 19th December, 2011.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER T. V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard for final disposal by consent of parties.

¶12

The petition is filed for declaration under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "MRTP Act" for short). It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of land Gat No. 939 situated at Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. The Development Plan for the township of Shrigonda was approved in the year 1995 and in the Government Gazette it was published on 22.5.1997. The land of the petitioners is shown as reserved for the purpose of Primary School. It is the case of the petitioners that for the period of more than 10 years, the authorities have not not taken any steps for acquisition of the aforesaid land under the Land Acquisition Act and in view of the provisions of section 127 of MRTP Act, the reservation needs to be treated as lapsed.

¶13

WP No. 4481/11

¶14

¶15

It is the case of the petitioners that the notice of purchase was given by the petitioners on 6.12.2010. But, even after that notice, no effective steps are taken for acquisition of the aforesaid land.

¶16

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed affidavits in reply. All the respondents have contended that the proceeding is premature in nature as in view of the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act, the petitioners ought to have waited for 12 months after giving notice of purchase. The Advocate for Municipal Council also submitted that the notice itself is defective and no record was produced to show the title or interest of the petitioners in the property along with the notice. However, it is also contended that the Municipal Council is in financial crunch and therefore, it has not passed resolution for acquisition of aforesaid land.

¶17

The advocate of the petitioner has placed reliance on the case reported as 2008 (8) SCC 728 [Prakash R. Gupta Vs. Lonavala Municipal Council & Ors.]. He has also produced a copy of judgment delivered by this Court [Coram : P.V. Hardas & N.D. Deshpande, JJ.] in WP No. 1891/2010 dated 21st July 2010. We have perused the orders cited supra.

¶18

WP No. 4481/11

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council submitted that along with the notice the petitioner did not furnish documents showing his title and interest in the subject property. Perusal of the notice clearly indicates that the petitioner claims to have title and interest in the property. The Municipal Council did not raise any objection in respect of petitioner's interest in the subject property. Considering the facts of the case this plea raised by the Municipal Council would not materially affect the outcome of the petitioner.

¶21

In fact, even in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, a period of 12 months has already expired after giving notice by the petitioner to the Municipal Council.

¶22

The Municipal Council has made its stand clear that due to financial crunch it is not possible to continue with the acquisition of the subject premises. This itself shows that the Municipal Council does not desire that acquisition proceedings be continued any further even if the petitioner was not entitled for any statutory benefits conferred under section 127 of the MRTP Act. Taking overall view of the matter we are of the opinion that the

¶23

WP No. 4481/11

¶24

¶25

petition deserves to be allowed.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(1) The petition is allowed.

¶28

(2) It is hereby declared that the reservation made in approved plan which was published in Government Gazette on 22.5.1997 in respect of Shrigonda Town for reservation of land Gat No. 939 admeasuring 8650 Sq. Mtrs. (Reservation site No. 45) is lapsed in view of the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966.

¶29

(3) The petitioners are at liberty to develop the property by presuming that there is no such reservation on it now.

¶30

(4) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶31

In view of the facts of the case, no costs.

¶32

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶33

ssc/

Vitthal Rajaram Chakane and Ors. v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Rajaram Chakane and Ors. v. the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyotsna Wamanrao Sarkate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Lotan Koli Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Anna Pandurang Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Asha Shankarrao Mundhe Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Digamber Pralhad Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Shainavi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Auth Officer Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.