The grievance of the petitioners is that acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the land for laying down the road which falls in the local limits of Phaltan Municipal Council. In DP Plan, the subject land is shown for road. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subject road was owned by a private owner. It is submitted that unless the procedure enunciated under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (MRTP Act) is followed, the respondentState is not entitled to go ahead with the extension of the said road and no further proceedings be permitted to be continued. Learned counsel further submits that procedure enunciated under section 22A of the MRTP Act is also not followed.

¶12

2/3 2971.14-wp.sxw

¶13

Learned A.G.P. submits that notice under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was issued prior to coming into force of the new Act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He, however, submits that the compensation would be paid to the affected parties in accordance with the new Act. It is submitted that the road under plan is a four-lane high way known as Shirval-Lonand-Phaltan-Baramati Highway.

¶14

Considering the exigencies, the respondent- State has taken appropriate steps in law for laying down a road and for its extension in the larger public interest. We have perused the provisions of section 37 of the MRTP Act. The said section refers to the modification of final DP Plan. The provisions of sub-section 2 of section 21 of the MRTP Act reads as under:

¶15

“ 21. Development Plan .- (1) ….. ….. …..

¶16

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Planning Authority constituted after the commencement of this Act shall, not later than three years from the date of its constitution, prepare, a draft Development Plan and publish a notice, of such preparation in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed and submit the draft development plan to the State Government for sanction.”

¶17

Learned A.G.P. has already made a statement that compensation would be paid to the affected persons in accordance with the new Act. He referred to the order dated 26^th September 2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Anoop Mohta and F.M.Reis, JJ) in

¶18

3/3 2971.14-wp.sxw

¶19

W.P.No.3844/2012 wherein the statement made in the affidavit filed by Divisional Officer and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Wai was recorded and in view thereof petition was disposed of. The said statement reads as under:

¶20

“2. I say that the Acquiring Body i.e. Public Works Department (East Division), Pune has from time to time deposited compensation amount in my office as per requisition of my office. I say that all the affected land holders including the Petitioners of four Laning of Shirval-Lonand-Phaltan-Baramati Road Project will be paid compensation in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 coupled with amendments made by State of Maharashtra thereto.”

¶21

We have perused the record placed before us and considered the submissions advanced. In view of the stand taken by the State that the land is acquired for widening of the road passing through the limits of Phaltan Municipal Council in larger public interest and that the compensation would be paid to the affected parties in accordance with the new Act, we do not find that additional notification is required to be issued considering the fact that the existing road already shown in the DP Plan is to be widened. In case the petitioners are affected by the acquisition proceedings they are entitled to claim benefits in accordance with law. With this observation petition is disposed of.

¶22

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Shri. Pritam Jaykumar Gandhi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Pritam Jaykumar Gandhi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Laxman Changadeo Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Arun Tukaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Education and Ors.

Darshana Oza Vs S.N.D.T. University and 2 Ors.

Vishwanath Bhikaji Tawade (Since Deceased L.R. 1. Sudhir Vishwanath Tawade and Ors) Vs 1. the Collector and Deputy Director of Rehabilitation

Vishwanath Bhikaji Tawade (Since Deceased L.R. 1. Sudhir Vishwanath Tawade and Ors) Vs 1. the Collector and Deputy Director of Rehabilitation

Kiran Vijay Rathod Vs the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.