Partly allowed

Shri. Laxman Mahadev Aher Thru Poah v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Its Town Planning Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2019WP/216/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order refusing refund of excess premium paid for land conversion, the High Court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of a subsequent Government Resolution reducing the premium rate, directing the Authority to reconsider the application. The court partly allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside with liberty to prefer fresh application within four weeks for refund of excess payment considering GR dated 11th June, 2015.

Shri. Laxman Mahadev Aher Thru Poah Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

5-WP-216-2019.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.216 OF 2019

¶4

Shri Laxman Mahadev Aher and Ors. … Petitioners

¶5

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. T.D.Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr. P.G.Sawant, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.

¶8

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &

¶9

SANDEEP K. SHINDE JJ.

¶10

DATE : AUGUST 29, 2019

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard Mr. Deshmukh learned counsel for the petitioners

¶13

and Mr. Sawant, the learned AGP for the State.

¶14

2 The Government of Maharashtra in its Urban

¶15

Development Department, vide its Notification dated 25 th November, 1997 sanctioned the Regional Development Plan, for Pune District,

¶16

which came into force with effect from 10 th February, 1998.

¶17

3 The State with an intention to promote residential development in agricultural/no development zone, proposed modification in Regional Plan and thus, issued a notice under

¶18

Shivgan 1/4

¶19

5-WP-216-2019.odt

¶20

Section 20(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short ' MRTP Act ') on 6 th May, 2015 and appointed Divisional Joint Director of the Town Planning as the officer for giving hearing in respect of the suggestions and/or objections to proposed modification.

¶21

4 The notice under Section 20(3) of the MRTP Act, proposed 'zone change premium' at the rate of 50% of the valuation of the land for permitting its change of user. On 11 th June, 2015, 'Zone Change Premium', rates were revised and scaled down to 30% from 50%.

¶22

5 Petitioner's land bearing Gat No.188 at Chandoli, Taluka: Khed, District: Pune was within the agricultural zone as per the Regional Development Plan and situated within the belt of 500 meters from Gavthan area of Village: Chandivali.

¶23

6 Petitioners vide application 20 th October, 2015 sought Non-Agricultural permission, i.e. converting subject property from agricultural to residential use against the payment of 'Zone Change Premium' ( “Premium” for short). Petitioners thus paid premium

¶24

Shivgan 2/4

¶25

5-WP-216-2019.odt

¶26

Rs.36,06,100/- @ 50% in terms of the notification dated 6 th May,

¶27

2015 and as such, vide order dated 31 st December, 2015, permission was granted.

¶28

7 Later, petitioner realised that the State vide Government Resolution of 10 th June, 2015 reduced 'premium' from 50% to 30% and thus, applied for refund of excess payment.

¶29

8 Respondent-Planning Authority, however, declined to refund excess payment of premium vide order dated 20 th December, 2017. Aggrieved by it, this Writ Petition is preferred.

¶30

9 In this case, petitioner applied on 20 th October, 2015 for the change of user of the subject land. On 6 th May, 2015, the State had issued a notice under Section 20(3) of the MRTP Act declaring its intention to modify the Regional Plan wherein 'premium' for change of user of agricultural land to residential use was notified @ 50%. This 'premium' has been revised by the State on 11 th June, 2015 and scaled down from 50% to 30%. Thus, as on the date of application made by the petitioner for change of user of the subject land, the GR dated 11 th June, 2015 was operating in the field. It

¶31

Shivgan 3/4

¶32

5-WP-216-2019.odt

¶33

appears from the impugned order that the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department, Pune did not consider provisions of the GR dated 6 th May, 2015.

¶34

1 0 Thus, in view of the facts and in particular, for nonconsideration of the provisions of GR dated 11 th June, 2015, we set aside the impugned order dated 28 th December, 2017 passed by the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department, Pune and direct the petitioners to prefer fresh application for claiming refund of excess payment premium with liberty to point out provisions of GR dated 11th June, 2015 to the concerned authority.

¶35

1 1 The Petitioners shall make such an application within four weeks from today and the concerned authority shall decide the said application on its own merits and without being influenced by the order passed by this Court, within four months therefrom.

¶36

1 2 With the aforesaid directions, petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶37

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶38

Shivgan 4/4

Shri. Laxman Mahadev Aher Thru Poah v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Its Town Planning Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Laxman Mahadev Aher Thru Poah v. the State of Maharashtra Thru Its Town Planning Dept. 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

Hidayatulla Amirmaja Mulla and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Yuvraj Keshav Karale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Justice Dept. and Ors.

Shabana Ayub Kazi Vs the Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corp. Ltd. (Cidco) and Ors.

Smt. Raziya Ajamuddin Husen Tamboli Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Ichalkaranji Education Society through Its Chairman Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Dashrath Vasudev Pharkande Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.