Allowed

Javed Shaikh Abdul Latif Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Bombay HC8 Mar 2024WP/798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning land reservation for the Waghur Canal, the High Court at Aurangabad directed the Municipal Corporation to declare the land no longer required for the project and release it from reservation, allowing the respondent to issue a formal notification within 45 days amid peculiar circumstances. The petition raised issues regarding the mandatory two-year waiting period for l

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation to declare the land no longer required for the Waghur Canal project, release it from reservation, and issue the requisite notification under Section 127

Javed Shaikh Abdul Latif Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:5085-DB

¶2

908-WP-798-2023.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 798 OF 2023

¶5

Javed Shaikh Abdul Latif Shaikh

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra Through The
Secretary And Others

¶8

...

¶9

Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6
Mr. M. V. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5
Mr. A. D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No. 7

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ
DATE:MARCH 08, 2024

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1.The Petitioner has put-forth prayer clauses

¶14

‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ as under:

¶15

“B) By appropriate Writ, order or
direction, it be held that, land bearing
Survey No. 345/6+7+10+1 of Jalgaon City,
Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon, situated within the
Municipal Limits of Jalgaon to the extent
of an area of 3460 Sq. Mtrs.
(approximately) affected by Reservations /
Designation for “Waghur Canal” and 18 meter
Road, adjacent to Waghur Canal and the
Respondent no. 4 be directed to grant
permission for Development to the
Petitioner.

¶16

C) By appropriate writ, order or direction,
the respondent no. 1 may kindly be directed
toissueappropriatenotification,
notifying the land bearing Survey No.
345/6+7+10+1 of Jalgaon City, Taluka &
Dist. Jalgaon, situated within the

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

908-WP-798-2023.odt

¶19

Municipal Limits of Jalgaon to the extent
of an area of 3460 Sq. Mtrs.
(approximately) affected by Reservations /
Designation for “Waghur Canal” and 18 meter
Road, adjacent to Waghur Canal

¶20

D) By appropriate writ, order or direction,
the respondent no. 1 may kindly be directed
to modify the Development Plan of Jalgaon
City, thereby recording the effect of
deletion of entire designation of Waghur
Canal and adjacent 18 Meter Road.”

¶21

2.An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Shri.
Chandrashekhar Kisan Patil, Sub-Divisional Engineer,

¶22

Waghur Dam, Sub-Division No. 3, Nashirabad, Tq and

¶23

Dist. Jalgaon dated 01.03.2024.

¶24

3.In paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-reply, the
acquiring authority has mentioned as under:

¶25

The information is received by the
deponent from the Asst. Engineer, Waghur
Dam, Nashirabad, Tq. Dist. Jalgaon that,
the canal is not going through the land
bearing survey no. 345/6/7/10/1, therefore
there is no need to acquire the land
bearing survey no. 345/6/7/10/1. By letter
dated 30.11.2017 it has been informed to
the petitioner that the canal of Waghur
project is not going through the land
bearing survey no. 345/6/7/10/1 therefore,
there is no need to acquire the said land.

¶26

4.In paragraph nos. 5 and 6, it is specifically

¶27

mentioned as under:

¶28

5.The answering respondent says and

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

908-WP-798-2023.odt

¶31

submits that, in view of the position that
the land of petitioner is not required for
the canal and 18 mtrs wide road and as per
Sec. 50 of Maharashtra Regional Town
Planning Act, 1966, the appropriate
authority is not interested in acquisition
of the land affected by the reservation as
per development plan, therefore it can be
said that the appropriate authority has no
any intension to establish the canal from
the land of the petitioner.

¶32

6.The answering respondent further says
and submit that, this Hon’ble Court in writ
petition no. 10319/2021 by order dated
20.07.2022 has passed order that, the
appropriate authority in that petition has
stated that the land is no longer required
for the project and after noticing the sand
of appropriate authority, the petitioners
therein allowed for seeking reservation of
lands. Accordingly reservation, allotment
or designation in respect of the land of
the petitioner therein has declared to be
lapsed and the said land made available to
the owner for the purpose of development.
This Hon’ble Court further directed to
State Government to issue notification as
contemplated under sub-section (2) of sec.
127 of MRTP Act, 1966 within period of six
months from the date of order. The copy of
order dated 20.07.2022 in writ petition no.
10319/2021 is annexed herewith and marked
as Exhibit R-2.

¶33

5.We called upon the learned Advocate for the
acquiring authority to state, whether this Petition can
be considered prior to the expiry of the two years
period pursuant to the purchase notice issued by the
Petitioner dated 22/25th August, 2022 under Section 127

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

908-WP-798-2023.odt

¶36

of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966?

¶37

This is in relation to the land survey/gut no.
345/6/7/10/1, situated in Jalgaon City admeasuring 69R,
to the extent of the portion affected by reservation
for Waghur Dam Project along with 18 meter DP Road
alongside canal, total portion admeasuring 3460 sq.
mtr.

¶38

6.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that if the acquiring Authority acknowledges
that they do not need the land or that the land can be
released from reservation, this Court need not follow
the dictum inM/S. Girnar Traders vs State Of
Maharashtra & Ors, AIR (2007) SC 3180, which mandates
the period of two years to lapse after which a
notification for releasing the land from reservation
can be issued.

¶39

6.The learned Advocate for the acquiring
Authority submits that this Petition can be entertained
today, before lapsing of two years in pursuance to the
purchase notice.

¶40

7.In view of the above, this Petition is

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

908-WP-798-2023.odt

¶43

disposed offwith a direction to the Municipal

¶44

Corporation, Jalgaon to forward a communication to
Respondent No. 1 within 30 days from today, declaring
that they do not need the land and the same is released

¶45

fromreservation.Consideringthepeculiar

¶46

circumstances, Respondent No. 1 would issue the
required notification under Section 127 of the Act
within a period of 45 days.

¶47

8.If similar circumstances emerge in relation to

¶48

any acquisition of land or any project included in the
present pending project, the Jalgaon Municipal
Corporation is at liberty to adopt a pragmatic approach
in order to issue appropriate orders/communications for
releasing of such properties without waiting for any
Petitioner to approach this Court.

¶49

Malani

¶50

Page 5 of 5

Javed Shaikh Abdul Latif Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Shaikh Abdul Latif Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary 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

Asad Abdulrahim Sayyad Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Dilip Mahadu Shinde Vs General Manager Retail Sale Mso Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

Ms Siddhant Trading Company through Its Proprietor Mr Laxmiraman Narayandas Bhutada Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Ravindra Bhausaheb Naik and Others Vs Trysem and Mini Iti Employees Union Thr Member and Others

Nikhil Satish Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others Vs Padma Gopal Tiwari and Others