Allowed

Suresh Kanhaiyalal Galani v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. the Director of Town Planning , Pune

Bombay HC13 Sept 2022WP/720/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the delay in acquiring land by the Municipality. The Court held that two years had lapsed, leading to lapse of reservation. The Municipality was directed to issue notification for acquisition within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent 1 to issue notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act within three months.

Suresh Kanhaiyalal Galani Vs the State of Maharashtra,Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

wp720.22

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.720 OF 2022

¶5

Suresh Kanhaiyalal Galani,
age 62 years, occupation :
business, r/o Balaji Ward,
Ballarpur, Taluq Ballarpur,
District Chandrapur. ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus -

¶7

1) The State of Maharashtra, through the Director of Town Planning, State of Maharashra, Central Building, Pune-1.

¶8

2) The Municipal Council (M.C.)/Nagar Parishad, through its Chief Officer at Ballarpur, Taluq Ballarpur, District Chandrapur, Pin-442902.

¶9

3) Assistant Town Planner, Chandrapur, Town Planning & Valuation Office, Chandrapur, Branch Office, Prashaskiy Building, 2^nd Floor, Room no.23, Chandrapur, Pin-442101.

¶10

4) The Collector of Chandrapur, through Sub-Divisional Officer, Ballarpur, appointed as Special Land Acquisition Officer, SDO Office, Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. ... Respondents

¶11

Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for petitioner.

¶12

Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent nos.1, 3 and 4.

¶13

wp720.22

¶14

¶15

Shri D.M. Kale, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶16

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
 G.A. SANAP, JJ.
 DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2022

¶17

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

¶18

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of Shri Mundhada, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 and Shri Kale, learned Counsel for the
respondent no.2.

¶19

2)It is not in dispute that period of more than two years
has lapsed since receipt of purchase notice under Section 127(1) of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter
“the Act” for brevity) by the respondent no.2. The ownership of the
subject land to be with the petitioner is also a fact, which is not in
dispute. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that no steps for
acquisition of the subject land as contemplated under Section 127 of
the Act have been taken by the respondent no.2 in the sense that no
notification under Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 has been issued. Admittedly, the proposal sent by the

¶20

3 wp720.22

¶21

respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 for compulsory acquisition of the
subject land has been returned by the respondent no.1 pointing out
certain lacunae in the proposal and these lacunae as per requirement
of Section 127(1) of the Act are not to be removed by the petitioner,
but by the respondent no.2, which is also the view taken by
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Gani N Wadwan

¶22

vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2018 LawSuit (Bom) 1003).
The ingredients of Section 127(1) of the Act for declaring lapsing of
the land under reservation have been fulfilled in this case and the
result is that this petition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

3)Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of its prayer
clause (A). The respondent no.1 is directed to issue necessary
notification under Section 127(2) of the Act within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

¶24

4)Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶25

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

khj

¶27

Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ JESWANI Signing Date:15.09.2022 18:52

Suresh Kanhaiyalal Galani v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. the Director of Town Planning , Pune

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kanhaiyalal Galani v. the State of Maharashtra,Thr. the Director of Town Planning , Pune

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

M/S. Ksl and Industries Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Kiran S/O Chinubhai Shah Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Finance, New Delhi and Anr.

Gajanan S/O Laxmanrao Peche Vs Sudhakarrao Gramvikas Pratishthan, Dongargaon and Others

Shri Ivan Singh S/O Late Shri Kanwar Shamsher Singh Vs Union of India Ministry of Defence Thr. Its Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Narendra Vasudev Prasad Gupta and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through the Director of Town Planning, Pune and Others

Dr. Sudhakar S/O Shankar Sarwate and Anr. Vs Director, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Tech. Nagpur and Others

Rekha D/O Peter D Cruz Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secrtary, Department of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others