Partly allowed

Motichand Hukumchand Bundelkandi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2013WP/3569/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that reserve for land under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, lapsed due to failure to acquire within the statutory period. The petition was partly allowed, declaring the land available for neighborhood development purposes without further plan modification.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was partly allowed; the reservation was held to have lapsed, and land became available for development as permitted for neighboring lands.

Motichand Hukumchand Bundelkandi Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

( 1 ) Writ Petition No.3569 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3569 OF 2013

¶4

Motichand Hukumchand Bundelkandi PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr.G.L.Gujar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.P.P.More, A.G.P. for respondent State.

¶8

( CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J. )

¶9

DATE 03/09/2013

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Heard Advocate Mr.Sabnis for petitioner, learned A.G.P. Mr.S.K.Tambe for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 6. Senior Advocate Mr.Dhorde with Advocate Mr.Dighe who appears for respondent No.2 Municipal Council i.e. the Planning Authority.

¶12

Service of a valid notice u/s. 127(1) of The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and expiry of period as required therein, is not in dispute. Failure to acquire the land is also admitted. In this situation, by placing reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust and others, reported in 2013(3) ALL M.R. 450 and

¶13

( 2 ) Writ Petition No.3569 of 2013

¶14

Shrirampur Municipal Council Vs. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji

¶15

Davkher and others, reported in 2013(3) All M.R. 477 , learned counsel submits that reservation must be declared to have lapsed and land, therefore, be made available for the purposes for which other adjacent lands are permitted as per the development plan.

¶16

Advocate Mr.Dhorde as also learned A.G.P. are opposing the contention. They invite our attention to order dated 03/02/2010 in Writ Petition No.7197/2009. They submit that when the petitioner approached this Court with similar grievance, this Court found it in public interest to grant authorities one opportunity to acquire the land. Accordingly, permission to issue notification u/s. 6 of The Land Acquisition Act was granted. They rely upon paragraph no.6 of the said order. It is their contention that in this view of the matter, as land acquisition proceedings could not be proceeded further, the action for deletion of reservation u/s. 127(1) of The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 is now necessary. That action shall be initiated in accordance with Law.

¶17

Adv.Mr.Dhorde submits that Municipal Council is handicapped as on one hand, it is expected to carry out planning and development work and on the other hand, its finances have been drastically curtailed. He contends that the octroi has been done away with and there is no corresponding grant to enable Municipal Council to meet this expenditure. Even power to levy taxes or revise taxes is not permitted. He, therefore, invites our attention to a challenge as

¶18

( 3 ) Writ Petition No.3569 of 2013

¶19

raised in Writ Petition No.6966/2013 which has been considered by this Court today.

¶20

Learned A.G.P. submits that though Government was ready and willing to proceed further, as Municipal Council could not deposit necessary funds, further steps in the matter could not be taken.

¶21

Provisions of Section 127(1) of The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 are very clear. There is a deemed dereservation and the law has been settled by the Apex Court in it's judgments referred to supra. It is, therefore, clear that if no steps towards acquisition are taken within a period of 6 months or then within a period of one year, the reservation lapses and land automatically become available for its development for the purposes for which the lands in neighbourhood are permitted to be used in development plan.

¶22

The order of this Court dated 03/02/2010 only enabled authorities to take appropriate steps in public interest. Those steps could not be taken. As those steps could not be taken within reasonable time, the petitioner is again before this Court.

¶23

It is therefore clear that in terms of said notice u/s. 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, the reservation has already lapsed and land has become available for its development

¶24

( 4 ) Writ Petition No.3569 of 2013

¶25

in accordance with said provisions.

¶26

In view of the deemed notification contained in section 127(1), it is not necessary to proceed u/s. 37 and to initiate steps for effecting any minor modification in development plan.

¶27

Writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. No costs.

¶28

(RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)

¶29

( B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶30

khs/Sept. 2013/wp3569-13

Motichand Hukumchand Bundelkandi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motichand Hukumchand Bundelkandi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sudhakar Pandit Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pramod Vishwanath Rohile Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakhubai Ratan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Syed Abdul Wahab Abdul Aziz Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sharad Shahurao Bawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yogita Samir Markad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others