Allowed

Sanjaykumar Biharilal Bangad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC1 Feb 2022WP/943/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the reservation of ancestral land for a civic centre after the acquiring authority failed to purchase it despite a valid notice. The High Court held that financial constraints do not excuse the statutory duty and declared the reservation lapsed.

What did the court decide?

The reservation of Survey No. 372 is declared lapsed and released; the State Government directed to publish a notification in the Official Gazette within two months.

Sanjaykumar Biharilal Bangad Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

WP-943-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.943 OF 2021

¶4

Sanjaykumar s/o Biharilal Bangad, Age-60 years, Occu. Agril. & Business, R/o. Main Road, Manwat, Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani.

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through: The Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Municipal Council, Manwat, Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani, Through its Chief Officer. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Manish P. Tripathi h/f Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

¶12

RESERVED ON : 27^th JANUARY, 2022

¶13

PRONOUNCED ON : 01^st FEBRUARY, 2022

¶14

JUDGMENT (PER S.G. MEHARE, J.) :-

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

¶16

Petitioner has the ancestral field Gat No. 372 at village Manwat.

¶17

The land measuring 3 H 30 R out of the said field was reserved for

¶18

1/5

¶19

WP-943-2021.odt

¶20

Civic Centre and Stadium under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 (‘MRTP Act’ for short) by revised Development Plan dated 30.08.2002. In 2015, the petitioner had consented to acquire his field in favour of respondent no.2. The petitioner and respondent no.2 had executed a consent deed on 23.03.2015, however, no steps were taken by respondent no.2 to purchase the land and it has shown inability to purchase his land. The petitioner accordingly served a notice under section 127 of the Act dated 28.09.2018 which the Respondent no.2 received on the same day. The statutory period of 2 years to acquire the land after the notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act has also lapsed, but no steps to acquire the land as provided under the said section have been taken by respondent no.2. Hence, his land is liable to be released from the reservation. Hence this petition.

¶21

The contesting respondent no.2, through its Chief Officer, in its affidavit in reply has, admitted the material facts of reservation of the land and service of the purchase notice by the petitioner. Respondent no.2 had immediately forwarded the notice issued by the petitioner to the President of Municipal Council Manwat for necessary action. However, the President endorsed that as the financial position of the Council is not good, therefore same will be considered in future. He has fairly conceded that yet no steps have been taken to acquire the

2/5

WP-943-2021.odt

petitioner’s land.

Section 127 of the MRTP Act provides for lapsing of reservation of the land when the Planning Authority fails to acquire or to take steps to acquire the reserved land within twenty-four months from the date of service of the notice by the landowner or the person having an interest in the reserved land. Failing to acquire or take the steps as provided in the said section, the reservation, allotment, or designation shall be deemed to have been lapsed and thereupon, the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation.

¶26

Frequently, the question that arises for consideration in such petitions is, when it is said to have taken steps to acquire the reserved land? Herein the case, whether the decision of the President of the Municipal Council, that the financial position of the Council is not good, therefore, same will be considered in future is a step to acquire the field of the petitioner is the question to be answered.

¶27

When would the step to acquire the land following the procedure laid in the Land Acquisition Act commence, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Girnar Traders (II) vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2007) 7 SCC 555 , has answered that the steps towards the acquisition would really commence when the State Government take active steps for the acquisition of a particular piece of land which would lead to the publication of the declaration under section 6 of the

¶28

3/5

¶29

WP-943-2021.odt

¶30

Land Acquisition Act 1894. Before the purchase notice, the petitioner had executed the consent deed on 23.03.2015 in favour of respondent no.2, even then, it has shown inability to purchase the land of the petitioner. Financial constraint is also not a ground to extend the statutory period to acquire the land or take steps to acquire the land after the notice is served under section 127 of the MRTP Act. As respondent no. 2 has failed to comply with the purchase notice as provided in section 127 of MRTP Act, hence by way of legal fiction as provided therein, the reservation of the petitioner’s land in the Development Plan of Manwat Municipal Council has lapsed.

¶31

Given the discussion in the preceding paras, the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶32

In the result, the reservation of the field survey no.372 of Manwat for Civic Centre and Stadium reserved in the revised Development Plan at site no.22 vide Notification dated 30.08.2002 is declared lapsed and released from the reservation as mentioned above. The said land became available to the petitioner for the development as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land under the said plan.

¶33

The State Government is directed to notify by an Order publishing in the Official Gazette that the reservation of the above land has lapsed from the revised Development Plan notified on

¶34

4/5

¶35

WP-943-2021.odt

¶36

30.08.2002 within two months from the date of the receipt of this

¶37

order.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶40

(S.G. MEHARE. J.)

¶41

Mujaheed//

¶42

5/5

Sanjaykumar Biharilal Bangad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaykumar Biharilal Bangad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Farooqui Mahvish Fatema Mujahed Farooqui Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

M/S Ramkrushna Commercial Complex Thr Its Proprietor Rameshwar Kanhaiyalal Bharuka Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sarjerao Laxmanrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahatram Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Thr Its President Shambhau Dhondiba Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Others

Amol Vijay Patil Vs Matoshri Pratisthan Thr Its President / Secretary and Others

Peravali Swaminadhan Vs Matoshri Pratishthan Thr Its President / Secretary and Others