Allowed

Champalal Kanhaiyalal Khinvasara through Gpa Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara v. the State of Maharashtra through Department of Urban Development and Others

Bombay HC28 Aug 2024WP/8760/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought declaration that a school and playground reservation on his land had lapsed under Section 127 MRTP Act after a 2019 purchase notice drew no acquisition steps. Court relied on Girnar Traders and Shree Vinayak Builders, allowed the writ, and ordered notification that the reservation has lapsed.

What did the court decide?

Planning Authority to issue lapse letter within 30 days; Respondent No.2 to issue Section 127(2) MRTP notification within 60 days; Model Code of Conduct not to impede implementation.

Champalal Kanhaiyalal Khinvasara through Gpa… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:19841-DB

¶2

1 905wp8760o24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8760 OF 2024

¶5

CHAMPALAL KANHAIYALAL KHINVASARA THROUGH GPA RAVINDRA CHAMPALAL KHINVASARA

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

¶8

Shri Palodkar Devdatt P., Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. Shri V.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 7.

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶10

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶11

DATE :- 28^th August, 2024

¶12

Per Court :-

¶13

There is no dispute that the Petitioner is owner and

¶14

possessor of the land admeasuring 5936.18 square meters situated in Gat No.166/P of village Tisgaon, Taluka and District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The sanctioned development plan dated 14.08.2001, for the purpose of a Primary and Secondary school and Playground, was notified by the CIDCO in the Waluj notified area.

¶15

2 905wp8760o24

¶16

On 02.03.2019, the purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), was issued. Notice was served on the Planning Authority as well as the State Government. No steps were taken, save and except, that the Development Rights Certificate (DRC) was offered by the Planning Authority.

¶17

The learned Advocate representing the Respondent/ CIDCO Authorities has placed on record an affidavit in reply dated 26.08.2024, from page Nos.43 to 57 and has vehemently opposed this petition. He submits that the CIDCO is willing to offer TDR. TDR is not being accepted by the Petitioner.

¶18

In our view, this issue is no longer res-integra in the light of the judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2022) 4 Mh.L.J. 739 (Full Bench). So also, the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555 and Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 3 SCC 1 , squarely applies to the present case. No steps, as

¶19

3 905wp8760o24

¶20

are expected in view of the law laid down in Girnar Traders (supra) , have been initiated by the Planning Authority.

¶21

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed . The Planning Authority shall issue a letter to Respondent No.2, within 30 days from today, indicating that the reservation has lapsed. Respondent No.2 shall thereafter, issue a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act, within 60 days.

¶22

If the Model Code of Conduct is introduced, the same shall not be an impediment for implementing this order.

¶23

kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

Champalal Kanhaiyalal Khinvasara through Gpa Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara v. the State of Maharashtra through Department of Urban Development and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Champalal Kanhaiyalal Khinvasara through Gpa Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara 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

Nandkumar Prabhakarrao Kulkarni and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rajesh Jagannath Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shukoor Khan Ismail Khan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Usha Ambadasrao Dhumal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Dayaram Ragho Mahajan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Aaparao Ramrao Tondchire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others