Partly allowed

Vikramsingh Jaysingrao Ghatge v. the Municipal Council, Kagal and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2014WP/1226/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court clarified that while the reservation for M.S.E.B extension remains valid due to correct parties of notice, the reservation for a primary school lapsed due to respondent inaction. Relief is restricted to the primary school site only.

What did the court decide?

Relief restricted to order quashing the restriction on reservation concerning site no.9 (primary school) due to respondent inaction.

Vikramsingh Jaysingrao Ghatge Vs the Municipal Council… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1226.11ct

¶2

Rng 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011

¶4

Vikramsinh Jaysingrao Ghatge	}
Kagal Senior Office, Plot No.101, JR 3, Haripuja Puram, 177-E, Nagala Park Kasaba Bawda Road,	}
Kolhapur	}	.. Petitioner
vs
1. The Municipal Council Kagal, Dist Kolhapur.	}
2. Chief Officer/Planning Officer, Kagal Municipal Council, Kagal	}
3. The Assistant Director Town Planning 1091, Bindu Chauk, Kolhapur 4. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Secretary,Urban Development Department,	} }
Mantralaya, Bombay.	}..	Respondents

¶5

Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.V.B.Rajure for Petitioner Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade for Respondent no.1 Mr.V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent nos.3 & 4 Mr.Rajendra P.Gurjar i/b M.V.Kini & Co for Respondent nos. 5 and 6. For Directions

¶6

CORAM: A.S.OKA & G.S.KULKARNI,JJ DATE: 14.10.2014

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per G.S.Kulkarni,J)

¶8

wp1226.11ct

¶9

Rng 2

¶10

As there was an inadvertent error in our judgment pronounced on 6.10.2014, the Office was directed to place the Writ Petition before the Court.

¶11

On behalf of the Petitioner, it is conceded that the letters/notices in question issued under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 were not issued to the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited but, to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 who are the officers of the said company. This is also clear from the perusal of the letters of the petitioner in question. In view of this admitted position, it cannot be said that the reservation in respect of site no. 8 namely for extension of M.S.E.B would stand affected by the purchase notice in question and the reservation in that regard continues to be valid.

¶12

We, therefore, hold that only the reservation in respect of a primary school (reservation site no.9) is deemed to have lapsed on account of inaction on the part of the respondent no.1 in not taking any steps to acquire the land in question reserved for primary school by issuance of a Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1848. We

¶13

wp1226.11ct

¶14

Rng 3

¶15

therefore, restrict the relief as granted in terms of prayer clause (a) only in respect of reservation for site no.9 that is regard to the primary school. We however, clarify that the adjudication of the present petition shall not affect the rights of the petitioners to take such appropriate steps as permissible in law in regard to the said reservation no.8 in respect of extension for M.S.E.B.

¶16

Writ Petition would stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that there is

¶18

an error in the title of the judgment pronounced by us on 6.10.2014. The same shall be corrected as follows :

¶19

(i) Add the names of respondent nos. 5 and 6.

¶20

(ii) In paragraph 2, survey no.247/3/1 be corrected as survey No.247/2/1.

¶21

Paragraph nos.1 to 3 as also the correction as observed in paragraph

¶22

4 be incorporated in our Judgment dated 6.10.2014 and the same be uploaded on the website.

¶23

(G.S.Kulkarni, J)

¶24

(A.S.Oka, J)

Vikramsingh Jaysingrao Ghatge v. the Municipal Council, Kagal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikramsingh Jaysingrao Ghatge v. the Municipal Council, Kagal 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

Krishnath Ashok Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Balgonda Jangonda Patil Vs Union of India, Thorugh Dept of Petroleum, Navi Delhi and Ors.

Federation of Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Association Vs State of Maharahstra and Anr.

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Parshuram Bhagoji Telange Vs Mr. Sachin Vasant Bhosale and Ors.

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.