Allowed

Sau. Dr. Jyoti Ajay Jawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development, Mumbai and 3 Others

Bombay HC6 Apr 2015WP/3068/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench allowed the petitioner’s writ petition, declaring that the reservation of the petitioner’s land for a primary school had lapsed. This was due to the failure of the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act within one year of receiving the purchaser's notice.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the reservation of the land has lapsed under Section 127 of the Act and the petitioner is free to develop the land.

Sau. Dr. Jyoti Ajay Jawarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 06.04.wp.3068.14.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3068 / 2014 ( Sau. Dr. Jyoti Ajay Jawarkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶5

Mr.A.S.Ghawde, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. K.S.Joshi, Asst.Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 4 Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3

¶6

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATED : 6^th April, 2015.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the reservation of Site No.103 in respect of the land owned by the petitioner and admeasuring . 48R in Survey No 173/1-A for the Primary School has lapsed under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ( henceforth abbreviated to “Act of 1966”) and the petitioner is free to develop the land owned by her in the manner permissible to the adjacent land holder as per the Development Plan of Amravati City.

¶9

The petitioner is the owner of . 48R of land in Survey No.173/1-A of village Rahatgaon and the said land was reserved for the Primary School in the final Development Plan published by the respondents on 4.12 1992. The final Development Plan came into force on 25.2.1993 and since no steps were taken by the respondents for acquisition of the land, the petitioner issued a purchase notice to the respondent no.3 and served a copy of

¶10

2 06.04.wp.3068.14.

¶11

the same on the respondent no.2 also. The said notice was duly received by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have not taken any effective steps within a period of one year from the service of the notice and hence the land of the petitioner, as mentioned hereinabove, stand de-reserved.

¶12

Mr.J.B.Kasat, the learned counsel for the respondents nos.2 and 3 does not dispute that a notice was issued to the respondent no. 3 on 22.11.2012. It is stated that a notice was required to be issued to the respondent no.2 also; however the petitioner did not issue a notice to the respondent no.2-Corporation though it is the Planning Authority. It is, however, fairly stated that the respondent nos.2 and 3 did not take any effective steps as required by the provisions of Section 127 of the Act of 1966 within a period of one year from the receipt of the notice dated 22.11.2012.

¶13

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the prayer made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition needs to be granted. After a period of more than ten years from the coming into force of the final Development Plan for the city since the respondents have not taken any steps for acquisition, the petitioner had issued the purchase notice to the respondent no.3 on 22.11.2012. Though the purchase notice was addressed to the respondent no.3, the copy of the same was duly served on the respondent no.2-Corporation also. The concerned Department of the Corporation has acknowledged the receipt of the notice on 22.11.2012. Since the respondent no.2 Corporation had received the purchase notice dated 22.12.2012, the respondent no.2 cannot raise an objection that the petitioner has not served a notice on the respondent no.2-Corporation. Despite the receipt of the notice dated 22.11.2012 by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 did not take any effective steps as required by

¶14

3 06.04.wp.3068.14.

¶15

the provisions of Section 127 of the Act of 1966 for acquisition of the land within a period of one year from the issuance of the notice dated 22.12.2012. Admittedly, no notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1966 was issued by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 within a period of one year from 22.11.2012. Since no effective steps were taken for the acquisition of the land, the reservation of the land for the Primary School stands lapsed under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act of 1966.

¶16

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. We hereby declare that the reservation of . 48R of land in Survey No.173/1-A, Site No.103, for Primary School has lapsed under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act of 1966 and the petitioner is free to develop the land owned by her in the manner permissible to the adjacent land holder as per the Development Plan of Amravati city.

¶17

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGEJUDGE

¶19

sahare

Sau. Dr. Jyoti Ajay Jawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development, Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Dr. Jyoti Ajay Jawarkar v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development, Mumbai and 3 Others

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

Shri Vijay S/O Pralhad Nage Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola and Another

Vyankatesh Reality, through Its Partner, Ashok Ratanlalji Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

M/S Enestee Engineering Pvt. Ltd. through Signator Shri S.K. Panigrahi, Nagpur Vs Union of Indi Athrough, Its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Shivkumar S/O Madhukar Hadke Vs Western Coalfields Ltd. (Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Chairman Cum M.D. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Ashok S/O Pundlik Wasnik Vs Western Coalfields Ltd. (Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Chairman Cum M.D. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Panduran S/O Chintaman Kadu Vs Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director and Anothers