Allowed

Jagjivan Motiram Wasnik v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC7 Oct 2021WP/147/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a land reservation for a sports ground. The court held that since no acquisition steps were taken by the Collector over two years after a notice, the reservation lapsed, and the petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed, declaring the reservation over the land had lapsed due to non-compliance with acquisition procedures by the authorities.

Jagjivan Motiram Wasnik Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp147.19

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.147 OF 2019

¶5

Jagjivan Motiram Wasnik,

¶6

aged about 71 years, occupation : business, r/o Ramabai Mabedkar Chowk, Vidyanagar, Bramhapuri, Tahsil Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus -

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department(1) Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶10

1. The Municipal Council, DesaiganjWadsa, through its Chief Officer, Tahsil Desaiganj, District Gadchiroli. ... Respondents

¶11

Shri A.B. Moon, Advocate for petitioner.

¶12

Smt. M. Deshmukh, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.

¶13

Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶14

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 7, 2021

¶15

¶16

wp147.19

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) :

¶18

Heard Shri Moon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, and Shri Dhawas, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶19

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶20

The land of the petitioner is under Reservation No.9 for the purpose of sports ground. The petitioner had sent a notice dated 21/8/2015 under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act calling upon the respondent no.1 to acquire the land so reserved.

¶21

It is seen from the reply of the respondent no.1 that requests were made to the Collector, Gadchiroli by the respondent no.2 Municipal Council for compulsory acquisition of the subject land, but in spite of the reminders sent to the Collector, no steps were taken by him and, therefore, the respondent no.1 has made a prayer in its reply, which reads thus :

¶22

“Hence, as mentioned in above paras, after considering the say of Respondent No.2, i.e. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Desaiganj, the Hon’ble

¶23

3 wp147.19

¶24

Court may pass the suitable order as deems fit and proper.”

¶25

According to respondent no.2, on its part, steps were taken by passing a resolution that the land must be acquired and accordingly, requests were made to the Collector, Gadchiroli, but to no avail.

¶26

In view of the nature of reply filed by both the respondents, it can be safely inferred that both the respondents impliedly admit that no such steps as are contemplated under law for acquisition of land have been taken by the Collector. It is further seen that there is neither any preliminary survey of land undertaken as per Section 12 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 nor any declaration has been published under Section 19 of the same Act. It is thus clear that after receipt of the purchase notice dated 21/8/2015, no steps for acquisition of the land have been taken by the Authorities for the period, which was more than two years and, therefore, the petitioner has now become entitled to seek a declaration that the reservation over the land bearing Survey No.81, Mouza Virsi Tukum within the limits of Municipal Council, Desaiganj-Wadsa, District Gadchiroli has lapsed.

¶27

4 wp147.19

¶28

In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause

¶29

(1) thereof. Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶30

JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

khj

Jagjivan Motiram Wasnik v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjivan Motiram Wasnik v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept., 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

Muzaffar Khan S/O. Mukaddar Khan Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Ritvi D/O Pankaj Golechha, Thr. Guardian Father Pankaj K. Golechha and Others Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, Pune Thr. Regional Director and Another

Chitra W/O Gajanan Deshpande Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Snehal Ramesh Rangari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Others

Tejas S/O Ramesh Katole Vs Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr Member Sec. and Dy. Director and Others

Mir Sadique Ali Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others