Allowed

Anil Prabhakar Aundhekar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Jan 2022WP/3842/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the ongoing reservation of their land for APMC. The court held that no acquisition steps were taken within two years of the notice. The reservation is deemed lapsed, and the State must release the land for general use.

What did the court decide?

Reservation on the land stands lapsed; State to notify release for general use within six months.

Anil Prabhakar Aundhekar and Others Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

991-WP-3842-20.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

991 WRIT PETITION NO. 3842 OF 2020 ANIL PRABHAKAR AUNDHEKAR AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Pramod C. Mayure AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. S.P. Tiwari Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 : Mr. S.C. Bora Advocate for Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh

¶6

… CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND S. G. DIGE, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 5^th JANUARY, 2022

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

We have heard Mr. Mayure, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the planning authority, the learned AGP for respondents- State Authorities and Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC).

¶10

The land of the petitioners bearing Survey No. 54/1 (22 Acres 33 Gunthas) and 55/1 (17 Acre 09 Gunthas), total admeasuring 40 Acres & 2 Gunthas situated at Parbhani-Jintur Road is reserved as Site No. 4/08 for APMC. The development plan came into effect from 16-12-1999.

¶11

The petitioners issued a notice U/Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) on 21-11-2017. The receipt of the said notice by the planning authority is not disputed.

¶12

It is also not disputed that no steps are taken for acquisition by issuance of a declaration U/Sec. 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act-2013)

¶13

¶14

991-WP-3842-20.odt

¶15

within a period of two years from the date of service of the said notice. In fact, no such declaration is issued even till date. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, it appears has communicated the planning authority that the reservation be released under its communication dated 10-04-2017.

¶16

It is abundantly clear that steps for acquisition would be initiated by issuance of declaration U/Sec. 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 19 of the Act-2013 as held by the Apex Court in case of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 3 S.C.R. 1.

¶17

Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a fetter on the power of imminent domain. The right to property, though is not a fundamental right still is constitutional right and now it has been brought within the contours of human right. The rightful owner of the property cannot be deprived of use and enjoyment of the property in perpetuity.

¶18

As no steps for acquisition are taken within a period of two years from the issuance of notice U/Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation stands lapsed.

¶19

In light of the above, it is held that the reservation on the writ land of the petitioners stands lapsed. The petitioners are entitled to use the land as the adjacent land is permitted to be used. The State Government shall issue notification to that effect, preferably within a period of six (06) months.

¶20

9. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶21

( S.G. DIGE ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

mtk

Anil Prabhakar Aundhekar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Prabhakar Aundhekar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Pandurang Sambhaji Totewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Kantappa Katkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Marathwada Division Library Association, Aurangabad. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Maniknagar through Its Labour Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sanjeev Asaram Sulane Vs District Collector and Another

Sudhakar Raosaheb Bane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others