Writ petition by land owner seeking modification of reservation for primary school. Court dismissed petition due to non-compliance of 2017 notice and prematurity of 2019 notice, directing parties to resolve land necessity. Writ petition disposed without costs.
No relief granted; parties directed to consider land necessity.
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.
1 wp 7081.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7081 OF 2019
SATYENDRA SHIVRAM JINDAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner :
Mr. Tripathi Sushilkumar H.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 2 :
Mrs. G. L. Deshpande
Respondent No. 3 - served
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 :
Mr. B. N. Gadegaonkar
...
CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE:23rd JANUARY, 2020
PER COURT:
1.We have heard Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Gadegaonkar, learned
counsel for respondent no. 4.
2.Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel contends
that in a development plan that came into effect
from 17.09.2006, the land of the petitioner is
reserved as site no. G-2 for primary school. The
petitioner issued notice U/Sec. 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
2 wp 7081.19 (hereinafter referred to ‘MRTP Act’) on
18.01.2017. No steps for acquisition are initiated
within stipulated period.
3.The learned counsel for respondent no. 4
submits that notice U/Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act was
not accompanied with the documents of ownership.
Respondent no. 4 issued notice to the petitioners
on 01.02.2017 and another notice on 01.04.2019.
The documents were not submitted. In view of that,
as the notice is not in accordance with Section
127 of the MRTP Act, the notice being invalid, the
reservation does not lapse.
4.We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned counsel for respective parties.
5.On perusal of the notice it appears that the
petitioner did not annex the documents of title.
It also appears that respondent no. 4 corporation
communicated the petitioners under letter dated
01.02.2017 to submit the documents of title and
other documents and again on 01.04.2019, the
petitioner was communicated by the municipal
3 wp 7081.19
corporation about non submission of the documents.
It appears that the petitioner on 21.02.2019 again
issued the notice U/Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act and
in the said notice has shown the documents annexed
as per the annexure.
6.As the notice of the year 2017 was not
complying with the requirements of Section 127 of
the MRTP Act, the relief as claimed by the
petitioner cannot be granted.
7.Further, it appears that the notice dated
21.02.2019 was issued afresh by the petitioners
U/Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act.
8.It is for the parties to consider about the
documents filed. Section 127 of the MRTP Act does
not require submission of measurement plan,
however, it requires submission of documents of
ownership showing his / her title or interest in
the said land. It would be inappropriate for the
municipal corporation to ask for the measurement
map. The petitioner is only required to annex the
4 wp 7081.19
documents showing their title or interest in the
property.
9.Considering the above, if the notice dated
21.02.2019 is construed to be notice U/Sec. 127 of
the MRTP Act, two years period is yet to lapse. It
would be premature to consider the said notice.
10.It is for the corporation and the petitioner
to consider about the necessity of the land to be
reserved and whether they desire to take steps for
minor modification.
11.Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe
3 issues framed by the court
Whether relaxation of Section 127 MRTP Act regarding measurement plan was granted to the petitioner.
Whether the notice issued by the petitioner under Section 127 MRTP Act in 2017 was compliant.
Whether the High Court could adjudicate on the validity of the notice issued in 2019.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SATYENDRA SHIVRAM JINDAM
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Other Respondents
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court