Disposed

M/S Vinayak and Co. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2014CA/1067/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that since the Sport Authority no longer needed the land for the sport complex, the private land should be deleted from the reservation. The Court directed the State Government to expeditiously consider the proposal for deletion under Section 50 and take a final decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State Government to expeditiously consider the proposal for deletion of land reservation under Section 50 and take a final decision within three months.

M/S Vinayak and Co. Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

G.A.Ghule [P.A.]

¶2

1/3

¶3

wp 11105.10 with wp 5553.02.sxw

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11105 OF 2010. WITH CA/1067/2011. WITH WP/5553/2012

¶7

M/S VINAYAK AND CO VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

¶8

Appearance =>

¶9

Mr. Anil Bajaj, Advocate h/for Mr. Girish Thigale (Naik), Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P.P. More, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State of Maharashtra.

¶11

Mrs. Manjusha Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & A.M. Badar, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 8^th December, 2014.

¶14

Per Court :- 222`1111

¶15

Heard Mr. Anil Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.P. More, learned Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State of Maharashtra and Mrs. Manjusha Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad.

¶16

[2] Perused the copy of noting at Sachivalaya particularly Urban Development Department on the communication dated 20^th February, 2010 sent by the Director, Town Planning.

¶17

2/3 wp 11105.10 with wp 5553.02.sxw

¶18

[3] It is not in dispute that land reservation No.248 was for sport complex and commercial complex. The total land ad-measuring 48.24 Acres was earmarked and out of it, 28 acres have already been developed for the said purpose by the Sport Authority. The Sport Authority has expressly communicated that now it does not need the lands in excess of what is already developed. Said authority has on 23^rd March, 2010 forwarded communication (dz-fodzhl@fo-ikdZ@uk-i=@2009&10@dk@153 milapkyd] fdzMk o ;qod lsok vkSjaxkckn foHkkx] vkSjaxkckn fnukad 23@03@2010-) to Principal Secretary, Urban Development Deptt., Mumbai.

¶19

[4] The Town Planning Department at Aurangabad on 12^th November, 2009 forwarded the same to Dy.Director, Town Planning, Aurangabad Divn., Aurangabad. They have suggested two alternatives; first one was to acquire remaining land by Sport Authority or then deletion of that land from reservation. Action U/Section 50 of the Maharashtra Regional and town Planning Act, 1966 for such deletion was also recommended.

¶20

[5] The above mentioned note produced at Exhibit "M" with Writ Petition shows that for deletion of private lands reservation, sanction of Cabinet was not necessary.

¶21

[6] The petitioner before this court has purchased 2 acres out of remaining land way back in the year 1996 in open auction and thereafter with due sanction has erected fencing. N.A. permission was also sought. However, further development has been stalled because in the year 2007, Respondent No.2 Planning Authority communicated that the land was under reservation.

¶22

3/3 wp 11105.10 with wp 5553.02.sxw

¶23

[7] By way of amendment, petitioner has also filed another Writ Petition pointing out these development and seeking deletion of reservation U/Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and town Planning Act, 1966.

¶24

[8] The developments noted by us are not in dispute. Out of total 48.24 Acres land, Sport Authority has utilized 28 Acres land and in remaining 20.24 acres land there is government land admeasuring 18.24 acres and 2 acres land is of private company i.e. the petitioner. It is, therefore, obvious that purpose for which the land was earmarked is already achieved and land in excess i.e. 20.24 acres of land is not required by the Respondent - Sport Authority. Petitioner's land is, therefore, not required for same development.

¶25

[9] In this situation, though there is favourable recommendation for deletion U/Section 50 of the Maharashtra Regional and town Planning Act, 1966, no steps have been taken by the State Government, for last more than four years. Interest of justice, therefore, can be met with by directing expeditious consideration of that proposal and to take final decision on it within three months. With these directions, we dispose of both the Writ Petitions. Pending Civil Applications are disposed of.

¶26

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

M/S Vinayak and Co. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vinayak and Co. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Mangilal Bhukchand Jain Vs the Municipal Council, Bhusawal and Another

Shankar Kachru Kedare Vs Punjabai Shankar Kedare and Another

Jaikaur Poonamsing Dongarjal and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Neelvastu Holiday Resorts and Properties Aurangabad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Santosh Ramlal Thole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devichand Yadavrao Bobade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others