Allowed

Nitin Hanumandas Agrawal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC24 Feb 2018WP/5508/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a declaration that land reserved for public use lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The court held that since the land was not acquired within the stipulated ten-year period and effective acquisition steps were not taken within 24 months of the notice, the reservation lapsed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted declaration that land reservation lapsed; declared petitioners free to develop land as per development plan.

Nitin Hanumandas Agrawal and Others Vs the State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP5508-17

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5508/2017

¶5

(NITIN HANUMANDAS AGRAWAL & OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

- - - - Shri G.K. Mundhada, counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Doifode, A.G.P. for the R-1, 2 & 4. Shri S.Zia Qazi, counsel for the R-3.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2018.

¶12

By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the reservation of the land of the petitioners vide reservation nos.19, 20 and 23 for site and services, urdu primary school and playground has lapsed and the petitioners would be free to develop the land as is permissible to the adjacent land as per the development plan.

¶13

The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land in Survey no.80/2 of village Chandurbazar, district Amravati and three different pieces of land as described in the writ petition and in prayer clause (A) were reserved for site and services, urdu primary school and playground by the revised final development plan published on 02.05.2000. Since the land of the petitioners was not acquired by the respondents by private agreement within ten years from the date of publication of the revised development plan, the petitioners served a purchase notice on the respondent-Municipal Council on 23.01.2015. Since effective steps are not taken by the respondents for the acquisition of the land within twenty four months from the date of the service of the purchase notice, the petitioners have sought for the aforesaid declaration.

¶14

WP5508-17

¶15

¶16

It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the reservation of the land of the petitioners would lapse in view of Section 127 of the Act, inasmuch as the land is not acquired by the respondents within ten years from the date of publication of the revised development plan and effective steps for acquisition are not taken within twenty four months (even if the amended provisions are applied) from the date of receipt of the purchase notice. It is stated that Section 6 notification for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners is not issued till date.

¶17

Shri Qazi, the learned counsel for the Municipal Council, submitted that after the purchase notice was received by the Municipal Council, the Municipal Council submitted the proposal to the State Government on 13.08.2015 for the acquisition of the land. It is stated that after the State Government asked the Municipal Council to deposit certain amount towards compensation, the Municipal Council could not do so due to financial difficulties. It is fairly admitted that the Section 6 notification is not issued for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners till date.

¶18

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Municipal Council, it appears that the declaration as sought by the petitioners needs to be granted. Admittedly, the land of the petitioners was not acquired by private agreement by the respondents within ten years from the date of publication of the revised development plan on 02.05.2000. Admittedly, the purchase notice was served on the respondents on 23.01.2015 but except for exchanging communications, no other effective steps were taken by the respondents for the acquisition of the land. The Section 6 notification for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners is not

¶19

3 WP5508-17

¶20

issued within twenty four months from the date of the service of the purchase notice on the municipal council. It appears that the municipal council was not able to muster the funds for acquiring the land of the petitioners.

¶21

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the petitioners vide reservation nos.19, 20 and 23 for site and services, urdu primary school and playground, has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and the petitioners would be free to develop the land, as is permissible to the adjacent land, as per the relevant development plan.

¶22

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

APTE

Nitin Hanumandas Agrawal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Hanumandas Agrawal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 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

Kunal @ Golu Anil Jaiswal Vs the Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division and Another

Rajendra S/O Shankarrao Thombare Vs State of Mah. through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Wardha and 2 Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Manager Kolkata Thr. Nagpur Branch Vs Grace @ Ezhilarasi W/O Late Pankaj Kapoor and Others

Atiq Rizwan Ahmed S/O.Shafiq Ahmed, and Another Vs Mrs. Asna Parveen W/O. Sameel Asif Khan, Nee Daughter of Mohammed Aslam Sheikh

Shivchand Somaji Khandake and Another Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Ministry of Home, Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Mr. Mohammad Jawed S/O Shaikh Idu Vs Ahebab Education Society, through Its President, Yavatmal and 3 Others