Allowed

Dashrath Vasudev Pharkande v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2019WP/5334/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a declaration that the reservation on certain land had lapsed due to failure to initiate acquisition proceedings within the statutory period under the MRTP Act, and that the land could now be used for a different purpose. The Court held that the reservation lapsed after the prescribed period and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the reservation on the subject land has lapsed and the land can be used for the purpose for which adjacent land can be utilized.

Dashrath Vasudev Pharkande Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

3-WP-5334-2017.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5334 OF 2017

¶4

Dashrath Vasudev Pharkande … Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Balasaheb R. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr. Y.S.Khochare, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. S.M.Oak i/by Mr. Sagar Joshi for Respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & SANDEEP K. SHINDE JJ.

¶7

DATE : AUGUST 29, 2019

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard respective counsels.

¶10

2 Dates of coming in force of final development plan in

¶11

terms of Section 31(6) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

¶12

Planning Act, 1966 (in short ‘MRTP Act’) and date of service and validity of notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act are not in dispute. Respondent no.2-Planning Authority has not given any reply to the notice. No reply affidavit is filed even before this Court

¶13

opposing the petition.

¶14

Shivgan 1/3

¶15

3-WP-5334-2017.odt

¶16

3 During the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for

¶17

the respondent no.2 invited our attention to the orders obtained by the petitioner in Regular Civil Suit No.53 of 2007. It appears that the said suit has been decreed on 11 th December, 2019 and the Municipal Council or its agents, servants are restrained from interfering or disturbing possession of the petitioner over the subject property. There is no issue and adjudication on lapse of reservation in the matter. The learned counsel further adds that the notice was issued in the year 2005 and the present Writ Petition has been filed in April, 2017, i.e., during the pendency of the Civil Suit. He submits that thus pendency of the civil suit cannot be an excuse for late filing of the Writ Petition.

¶18

4 We find that reservation lapsed after the formalities stipulated in Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act are complied with. Reservation, accordingly, lapsed after expiry of period of six moths of service of notice as no steps leading to the acquisition were initiated by the Municipal Council. Petitioner is only seeking declaration of that lapsing now.

¶19

Shivgan 2/3

¶20

3-WP-5334-2017.odt

¶21

5 Allowing the point is concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶22

Court in the case of Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 627 ,

¶23

and State of Maharashtra v. Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust and Ors.

¶24

(2013) 4 SCC 676.

¶25

6 In the light of these judgments, it is apparent that reservation on property described in prayer clause (a) of the Writ Petition No.5334 of 2017 has already lapsed and the said land, therefore, can be used for the purpose for which adjacent land can be utilized.

¶26

7 Hence, with the said declaration, we allow the Writ

¶27

Petition and dispose it of.

¶28

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

¶29

Shivgan 3/3

Dashrath Vasudev Pharkande v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrath Vasudev Pharkande v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

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.

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

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