Allowed

Smt. Dhanwanti K. Nagpal v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2016WP/1462/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court declared that land reserved for public purpose under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, lapsed because the municipal corporation failed to acquire it within the prescribed period after receiving a valid purchase notice.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that reservation on the land has lapsed and the land stands released and is available to the owners for development.

Smt. Dhanwanti K. Nagpal Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

909-WP-1462-2013.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1462 OF 2013

¶4

Smt. Dhanwanti K. Nagpal Versus Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Anr.

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

..Respondents

¶7

Mr. V. Naik , Senior Advocate with Mr.S.P.Kanuga and Ms. S.N.Natu, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. V.D.Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Mali , AGP for the State-Respondent No.2.

¶9

Coram : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, JJ.

¶10

Date : 26^th APRIL, 2016.

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

Parties through their counsel.

¶13

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.

¶14

3 The Petitioner is seeking a declaration that reservation made on Plot No.421 U.No.398 all situated at Sheet No.72 Ulhasnagar-2, Dist. Thane has lapsed and reservation on the said land for public purpose stands released forthwith and is available to the owners for development which is permissible in law. According to the Petitioner, under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act , 1966 (In short ' MRTP Act' ) where

1/3

Shivgan

909-WP-1462-2013.doc

citizen's land is reserved for any public purpose then the appropriate authority/planning authority must take steps to acquire the land designated in the development plan for public purpose within the prescribed period provided for under the provisions of Section 126 of the MRTP Act either by an agreement or by resorting to the provisions set out in Section 126 of the said Act or even other applicable provisions failing which the law provides for an option to the citizens to serve the purchase notice upon the appropriate authority/planning authority offering the said land to the concerned authority to purchase the same and upon service of such purchase notice upon the authority, it has to exercise its right of acquisition as per the period prescribed and the period starts from the date of service of the purchase notice failing which the reservation would lapse and the land as such becomes available for development as on non-exercise of the power within the prescribed period, there is a deemed release of the land from reservation. The Petitioner claims that the purchase notice was served upon the Respondents on 15.10.2007 and thereafter since no steps as provided under Section 126 were taken by the authority, the reservation has lapsed.

¶19

4 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-Corporation submits that the Petitioner had served purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 11.6.2012 but she did not submit title documents and the title documents were submitted for the first time on 9.7.2013. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Respondent

2/3

Shivgan

909-WP-1462-2013.doc

No.1 has placed on record the letter dated 25.4.2016 which is taken on record and marked 'X' for Identification stating therein that the Corporation has not taken any steps for acquisition of the said land.

¶24

5 Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, without going into the controversy as to whether the first purchase notice was sent by the Petitioner and received by the first Respondent on 15.10.2007 or not we find from the facts as stated above that even after the receipt of the purchase notice dated 11.6.2012 and subsequent documents in support of it on 9.7.2013, within the prescribed period the Respondent No.1 has not taken any steps for acquisition.

¶25

6 In the result, we allow the Petition and declare that reservation on the said land has lapsed for public purpose and the land stands released and becomes available to the owners for development in accordance with law.

¶26

7 Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶27

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶28

[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶29

3/3

¶30

Shivgan

Smt. Dhanwanti K. Nagpal v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dhanwanti K. Nagpal v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner 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

Miss Archana Appaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Anant Rambhao Jadhav and Ors. Vs Dnyaneshwar Baliram Thakre

Savita Vitthal Virkar Vs Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and Ors.

Vaibhavwadi Taluka Shikshan Sanstha through President/Secretary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Navmaharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.