Allowed

Vimalbai Bhausaheb Dhondare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Department of Urban Development and Others

Bombay HC11 Aug 2023WP/1567/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed writ petitions filed by two petitioners regarding the lapsing of land reservation for unexecuted public purposes. The court held that since acquisition steps were not taken within 24 months after issuing the purchase notice as per judicial precedents, the reservation lapsed. The petitioners are directed to forward proposals for compensation or development rights.

What did the court decide?

Reservation of the land was declared to have lapsed. Directly ordered authorities to forward proposals to competent authority within 45 days and issue notifications under Section 127(2) within 60 days

Vimalbai Bhausaheb Dhondare and Others… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

916&7917wp1567-23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

916 WRIT PETITION NO.1567 OF 2023

¶4

VIMALBAI BHAUSAHEB DHONDARE AND OTHERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF URBAN

¶7

DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

¶8

AND

¶9

917 WRIT PETITION NO.1571 OF 2023

¶10

AARATI KAKASAHEB DHONDARE AND ANOTHER

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

¶13

Mr. Shubham S. Khoche, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents 1 to 4/State
Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.5

¶14

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
 Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 11th August, 2023

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

1. In both these matters, the issue is with regard to the lapsing

¶17

of reservation.

¶18

2.In the first petition, the land of the petitioner admeasuring 1
Hectare was earmarked for a playground and 0 H 34 R land was
earmarked for a school, out of Gat No. 53 in village Golwadi Tq. & Dist.
Aurangabad by the final sanction to the development plan accorded by
the State on 14.08.2001.

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

916&7917wp1567-23

¶21

3.In the second matter, the land of the petitioner admeasuring
0 H 14 R was earmarked for a Mangal Karyalaya and 0H 06 R was
earmarked for a social facility in Gat No. 70. So also, land admeasuring
0.H 12 R for a social facility and 0 H 10 R for a Dispensary, was
earmarked in Gat No. 78 of village Golwadi by the final sanction to
the development plan.

¶22

4.Since the steps were not taken towards acquisition, purchase
notice under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 was issued in both the matters, on 11.02.2019. No
steps were taken for acquisition as contemplated under section 126 (1)
(c) of the Act. Development Rights Certificate was offered in lieu of
compensation which, the petitioners have declined to accept.

¶23

5. CIDCO authorities have filed an affidavit in reply. The learned Advocate representing CIDCO has vehemently opposed both these petitions and prays that they should be dismissed with costs.

¶24

6.Insofar as any step as recognized by the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders and Another Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others; 2007 AIR (SC) 318, the CIDCO authorities
cannot indicate from the record that any such steps have been taken
within a period of 24 months, after the issuance of the purchase notice.

¶25

7. In view of the above, both these petitions are allowed.

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

916&7917wp1567-23

¶28

8.We direct the CIDCO authorities to forward appropriate
proposals to the competent authority within 45 days from today. The
competent authority shall accordingly issue the notifications under
section 127(2) of the MRTP Act, within 60 days thereafter.

¶29

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )

¶30

 ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶31

JPChavan

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Vimalbai Bhausaheb Dhondare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Department of Urban Development and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimalbai Bhausaheb Dhondare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Department of Urban Development 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

Shivdas Bhavsing Chavan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Sumanbai Uttam Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Jalgaon District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Jalgaon through Its Manager Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Grampanchayat Pethwadaj through Its Sarpanch Anita Datta Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Aarati Kakasaheb Dhondare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Department of Urban Development and Others

Parbhanna Poshetti Died through Lrs Mahadu Parbhanna Died through Lrs Vs the Collector Nanded and Others