Remanded

Sakharam Mahadeo Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2012WP/2598/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside communications rejecting a request to delete land reservation, finding the authority failed to consider prior permissions. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Set aside communications dated 21.4.2009 and 12.1.2010; remanded for reconsideration before Principal Secretary with opportunity to Assistant Director.

Sakharam Mahadeo Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

rng

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2598 OF 2011

¶5

Sakharam Mahadeo Jadhav .. Petitioner

¶6

vs

¶7

State of Maharashtra & ors

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr.R.V.Govilkar for Petitioner

¶10

Mr.C.R.Sonawane A.G.P. for Respondent no.1
Mr.D.P.Adsule for Respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶11

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR &
N.M.JAMDAR, JJ
 DATE: 5th March, 2012

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1. This Petition under Article 226 of the

¶14

Constitution of India takes exception to the
rejection of the Petitioner's request for deleting
the reservation in respect of land bearing Gat No.53

¶15

(pt) at village Manjarli Taluka Ambernath District
Thane bearing Reference No.51 (pt) on plot nos.
11,14,15 out of Gat No.53. That decision was
communicated to the Petitioner on 21.4.2009 by the
Section Officer of the Urban Development Department.

¶16

ThePetitionermovedthedepartmentfor
reconsideration of the said decision which request
was also rejected and communicated to the Petitioner
by the Section Officer of Urban Development
Department vide letter dt 12.1.2010. The Petitioner

¶17

¶18

has challenged both these communications received
from the Section Officer.

¶19

2. The first ground is that the communication does

¶20

not disclose any reason which weighed with the
authority to reject the Petitioner's request for
deletion of reservation although according to the
Petitioner he fulfilled all the requirements of the
policy incorporated in the Notification issued by
the Urban Development Department dt 25.7.2005.

¶21

3. In response to the challenge, Kishor D.Girolla
TownPlanner,DeputyDirectorofTown

¶22

Planning,Konkan Division Navi Mumbai has filed his

¶23

Reply affidavit dt 16.9.2011. In para 3 of the said
affidavit it is stated that as per the note below
Regulation M-13 in the Notification finalising the
Development Plan no development was allowed in case
of lands affected by any reservation as previous
commitment in the sanctioned Development Plan except
wherever N.A.permission, layout permission or Sub
Division permission and Building Permission is
granted prior to the publication of land i.e. prior
to 10.5.2001.It is further stated that the
authorised construction of such plots was to be

¶24

¶25

sanctioned by the Government within one year from
the date of the sanctioned Development Plan. No
application for such proposal was to be considered
if made one year after date of sanctioned
Development Plan.

¶26

4.The question is whether the Petitioner's case
is covered as per policy contained in Notification
dt 25.7.2005 ? As per the note appended below
Regulation M-13 which has also been quoted in para 3
of the Affidavit, the authority ought to have
considered the contents of the communications sent

¶27

by the Petitioner to the Secretary, Urban
Development Department and more particularly the
factual position stated therein which is supported
by the documents accompanying thereto. It appears
that even the Municipal Council communication dt
21.11.2006 reinforces the stand taken by the
Petitioner. In that, the Petitioner has already
obtained N.A.permission in respect of the said
lands. Besides, the Petitioner has already obtained
building permission in the year 1963 and constructed
building thereon in 1965-1966 in respect of which
property taxes have also been collected by the
Council. Obviously, these facts have not been

¶28

¶29

considered by the Urban Development Department
before rejecting the Petitioner's proposal for
deleting reservation in respect of the said lands.

¶30

5. Accordingly, we dispose of this Petition by
setting aside the communication dt 21.4.2009 and
12.1.2010 at pages 50-55 respectively and instead we
relegate the Petitioner before the Principal
Secretary, Urban Development Department for re-
consideration of the Petitioner's proposal for
deleting reservation in respect of said lands as
according to the Petitioner his case is covered by
the policy stated in Notification dt 25.7.2005.
Indeed, the said authority shall give opportunity to
all concerned and in particular the Assistant
Director,Town Planning, Thane before taking any
decision in the matter. For, the Assistant Director
in his communication dt.23.1.2009 addressed to the
Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department
Exhibit I at page 48 of the Petition has raised some
issues which may be relevant for taking a final
decision.

¶31

6. The Principal Secretary shall decide the
proposal expeditiously. Needless to observe, the

¶32

¶33

authority shall consider the matter on its own

¶34

merits in accordance with law.

¶35

 Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶36

N.M.JAMDAR, J

¶37

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

Sakharam Mahadeo Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakharam Mahadeo Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashwant Dagdu Pawar Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 9 Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Ltd, through Bandopant Madhukar Sathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept and Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Ltd, through Bandopant Madhukar Sathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept and Ors.

Miss Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Pune Region

Palm Towers Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors. Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dr. Sureshchandra R. Bhosale and Ors. Vs University of Pune and Ors.