Allowed

Bharde Saksharta Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Nov 2016WP/1578/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court held that reservation of land for public purpose lapses if acquisition steps are not taken within one year of issuing notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act, ordering the release of the petitioner's land.

What did the court decide?

Land bearing Gat No. 720/1 Survey No.8 at Shevgaon released from reservation; Municipal Council to take consequential steps.

Bharde Saksharta Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

08wp1528-15.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

8 WRIT PETITION NO. 1578 OF 2015

¶4

1. Bharde Saksharta Prasarak Mandal ... Petitioner Through its Secretary, Shamsundar s/o Dattatray Bharde, Age 77 years, Occu: Agri, R/o Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon District Ahmednagar.

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

2. The Divisional Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Nashik.

¶8

3. The Collector, Ahmednagar.

¶9

4. The Director fo Town Planning, Ahmednagar.

¶10

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

¶11

6. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Shevagaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶12

7. The Chief Officer, ... Respondents Shevagaon Nagar Parishad, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶13

Mr. K. M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, AGP for the respondents 1 to 3
Mr. S. V. Natu, Advocate for respondents 6 and 7

¶14

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
:
DATE22nd November, 2016

¶15

1/5

¶16

08wp1528-15.odt

¶17

JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J):

¶18

1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal.

¶20

3. Mr. Nagarkar, the learned counsel for the

¶21

petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of the
land bearing Gat No.720/1, Survey No.8, admeasuring
about 20 R, situated at Shevgaon. The same is reserved

¶22

for the purpose of Dispensary and Maternity Home under
the development plan, which came into effect from
01.06.1987, of village Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar.
Initially, the same was within limits of Grampanchayat

¶23

and in 2015, the said Grampanchayat became Municipal
Council. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, no steps were taken for development or
acquisition of the said land for a long time. As such,
the petitioner, on 04.10.2011, issued a notice under
section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966. The said notice is addressed to the
Zilla Parishad, the then planning authority, copy of

¶24

which was also given to the Grampanchayat. However, no
steps are taken within a period of one year as

¶25

2/5

¶26

08wp1528-15.odt

¶27

contemplated under section 127 of the Act, 1966. As
no steps are taken, in a sense that declaration under
section 126 of the Act, 1966 read with section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act has not been made, the land would
stand released from the acquisition. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case ofGirnar Traders (II) Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555.

¶28

4. Mr. Natu, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submits that the notice under
section 126 of the MRTP Act was never served upon the
Grampanchyat and the Municipal Council. As such, there
is no issuance of notice under section 127 of the MRTP

¶29

Act. The stamp of the Grampanchayat has been affixed
fraudulently. Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat was
employee of the petitioner and subsequently her
husband was Upsarpanch. According to the learned
counsel, the said land is required for the purpose of
Dispensary and Maternity Home. In fact, at the relevant
time, respondent no.3 was possessing necessary funds
for acquiring the land. As no notice has been served,
the reservation does not lapse.

¶30

5. Learned AGP submits that the Planing authority,

¶31

3/5

¶32

08wp1528-15.odt

¶33

at the relevant time was the Zilla Parishad and the
Zilla Parishad and the Grampanchayat were served with
the notice under section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act.

¶34

6. We have considered the submissions canvased by
the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶35

7. The planning authority i.e. Zilla Pariad has no
where denied the receipt of the notice under section
127 of the MRTP Act. Endorsement also appears to be
of the Grampanchayat having received the notice. The
land of the petitioner appears to have been reserved
for the purpose of dispensary and maternity home in the
development plan sanctioned on 01.06.1987. It is not
disputed that as yet, no declaration under section 126
MRTP Act, 1966 read with section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act has been issued even after five years
of the issuance of notice under section 127 of the MRTP
Act. Provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act fallen
on the powers of eminent domain. If steps for
acquisition are not taken within one year from the date

¶36

of receipt of notice by the acquisition authority, then
axiomatically reservation stands lapsed.

¶37

8. In light of above, we pass following order:

4/5

08wp1528-15.odt

O R D E R

i. Land bearing Gat No. 720/1 Survey No.8 to the
extent of 20 R situated at Shevgaon Dist.
Ahmednagar stands released from the reservation
and can be used for the purpose as that of the
adjacent land.

¶42

ii. Further consequential steps be taken by the respondents Municipal Council pursuant to the release of the property from the Acquisition.

¶43

iii. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be
no order as to costs.

¶44

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶45

JPC

¶46

5/5

Bharde Saksharta Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharde Saksharta Prasarak Mandal, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Shankarrao Rapte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manisha Vilas Vane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheetal Dagadu Undare Vs the Secretary and Anothers

Atmaram Madhavrao Mundhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Bisandas Gugale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rahul Rangarao Patil Vs the State of Maharasthra and Others