Petitioner challenged rejection of purchase notice under Section 49 of MRTP Act. High Court quashed order as reasons were statutorily impermissible and remitted matter for fresh decision within three months. No separate headnote provided.
Impugned order quashed and remitted for fresh decision within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
56-WP-8209.13
BDPSPS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8209 OF 2013
Shri Sakharam Madhadev Jadhav
….Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra and Anr. …. Respondents.
Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade & Mr. Sandeep Phathak, Advocate i/b Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. D.P. Adsule, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE: 19th September, 2017
P.C.:-
1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard, by consent of parties.
2] The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present Petition are as under:-
1/4
56-WP-8209.13
69/2/1 situated within the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2. In the development plan of Respondent No.2, the said property is reserved for Public Offices and Staff Quarter (Reservation No.5) and Truck Terminal (Reservation No.6).
4] It appears that the said property was covered earlier, under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. However, it appears that in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.1698 of 2009, it was held that the land was not covered by the provisions of ULC Act and the name of Government of Maharashtra was directed to be deleted. There were certain other rounds of litigation. However, they would not be relevant for the purpose of present Petition.
5] On 28/08/2012, Petitioner served upon the Respondents, the said purchase notice as provided under section 49 of the said Act. By the impugned order dated 26/02/2013, the purchase notice was rejected by the Respondents – State. Hence, the present Petition.
6] It will be relevant to refer to sub-section (4) of section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 which reads as under:-
“49. Obligation to acquire land on refusal of permission or on grant of permission in certain cases
(1)............
(2)............
2/4
56-WP-8209.13
(3)..........
(4) On receiving such records or reports, if the State Government is satisfied that the conditions specified in sub-section (1) are fulfilled, and that the order or decision for permission was not duly made on the ground that the applicant did not comply with any of the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations, it may confirm the purchase notice, or direct that planning permission be granted without condition or subject to such conditions as will make the land capable of reasonably beneficial use. In any other case, it may refuse to confirm the purchase notice, but in that case, it shall give the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(5)........
(6)........
(7)........”
7] It could thus be seen that the purchase notice given by the Applicant could be rejected only on the ground mentioned in subsection (4) of Section 49.
8] Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the reasons given in the impugned order are that, there are several open spaces available and that there is no approach road available to the land in question and, as such, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was deprived from the beneficial user of the said land. We find that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The reasons given are beyond the scope of Section 49 of the said Act.
3/4
56-WP-8209.13
9] In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in the following terms:-
(i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted back to the Respondents – State for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 49 of the said Act. The same shall be done within a period of three months from today.
(iii) No order as to costs.
(M. S. KARNIK, J. ) (B. R. GAVAI, J. )
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the reasons given for rejecting a purchase notice under section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act fall within the statutory scope of subsection (4) thereof.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Sakharam Madhadev Jadhav
State of Maharashtra
B. R. GAVAI
M.S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
