Allowed¶12

Nine Star Multiservices Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Director, Shankar Gokulprasad Agrawal v. State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2025WP/149/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 127 MRTP Act 1966 lapse of reservations; unactioned purchase notice; MHADA Special Planning Authority Chandrapur; State failed to release acquisition funds; release of reserved land (Shopping Complex, Dispensary, Vegetable Market, Mutton and Fish Market, Parking); notification under Section 127(2) within six weeks; Bombay HC Nagpur Bench Division Bench.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; land reserved by respondent No.2 declared released from the reservation, with direction to issue consequential notification within six weeks. ¶12

Nine Star Multiservices Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Director, Shankar Gokulprasad Agrawal Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; land reserved by respondent No.2 declared released from the reservation, with direction to issue consequential notification within six weeks.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the reservations affecting the petitioner's land (Reservation No.1 - Shopping Complex 3600 sq m; No.2 - Dispensary 2300 sq m; No.3 - Vegetable Market 2000 sq m; No.4 - Mutton and Fish Market 2200 sq m; No.4A - Parking 9600 sq m) in the Regional Development Plan of the Chandrapur-Ballarpur Region have lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, entitling the petitioner to release of the land and issuance of notification under Section 127(2).

¶2

Court's answer

The purchase notice was not honoured by respondent No.2 for want of financial aid from the State Government, and the petitioner is therefore right in claiming release of the land from the clutches of the reservation.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶12

Key takeaways

The land of the petitioner reserved by respondent No.2 is declared released from the reservation, and a consequential notification to that effect is to be issued within six weeks.ratio¶13
A copy of the order is to be placed before respondent No.1 (the State), who is expected to be sensitive to respondent No.2's requirement of funds for acquiring the land to provide better civic and public amenities.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (DB: Nitin W. Sambre and Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.), 11.03.2025 - Writ Petition No. 149/2025: The petitioner landowner sought a declaration that five reservations on its land under the Regional Development Plan of the Chandrapur-Ballarpur Region (Shopping Complex 3600 sq m, Dispensary 2300 sq m, Vegetable Market 2000 sq m, Mutton and Fish Market 2200 sq m, Parking 9600 sq m) had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and a consequential notification under Section 127(2). Its purchase notice demanding acquisition with market-value compensation (or a no objection) went unactioned. Respondent No.2 (Special Planning Authority, MHADA, Chandrapur) admitted the petitioner's ownership but stated it received no funds from the State for compensation, so acquisition was never initiated. The Court held that the State's failure to honour the purchase notice for want of financial aid justified release of the land, allowed the petition, declared the land released from the reservation, directed issuance of the consequential notification within six weeks, and ordered a copy of the order to be placed before the State.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:2605-DB

¶2

1 953.wp.149.25

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 149/2025

¶5

Nine Star Multiservices Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶8

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

¶10

Ms Manjusha Dongre (Khobragade), Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. J. Gohokar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. P. S. Tidke, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 11/03/2025.

¶12

. Heard.

¶13

2 The prayers in the petition are as under :

¶14

“A. Declare that the reservations affecting the land owned by petitioners having Reservation no.1 area admeasuring 3600 sq.mtr. for Shopping Complex, Reservation no.2 area admeasuring 2300 sq.mtr. for Dispensary, Reservation no.3 area admeasuring 2000 sq.mtr. for Vegetable market, Reservation no.4 area admeasuring 2200 sq.mtr. for Mutton and Fish Market, Reservation no. 4A area admeasuring 9600 sq.mtr. for Parking have lapsed under Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and permit the petitioners to develop the aforementioned land owned by them in a manner permissible to the adjacent land as per the Regional Development Plan of the Chandrapur-Ballarpur Region.

¶15

B. Direct the respondents to notify and publish in the official Gazette notification under Sec. 127 sub-Section (2) and declare that the

¶16

2 953.wp.149.25

¶17

reservations affecting the land owned by petitioners having Reservation no.1 area admeasuring 3600 sq.mtr. for Shopping Complex, Reservation no.2 area admeasuring 2300 sq. mtr. For Dispensary, Reservation no.3 area admeasuring 2000 sq.mtr. for Vegetable market, Reservation no.4 area admeasuring 2200 sq. mtr. for Mutton and Fish Market, Reservation no. 4A area admeasuring 9600 sq. mtr. for Parking have lapsed within eight weeks or the period as may be specified by this Hon’ble Court.

¶18

C. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

¶19

In support of the prayers, it is the case of the petitioner that a notice was served to the respondent No.2 thereby calling upon him to take steps for acquisition of the land and make arrangement for the payment of the compensation as per the market value. In alternate, the said notice speaks of the issuance of no objection to be granted by the said authority.

¶20

The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit on record duly sworn by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Special Planning Authority, MHADA, Chandrapur stating that the ownership of the petitioner is not in dispute, however, the respondent No.2 has not received an amount from the State Government for payment of compensation and as such, the acquisition proceedings and further development are not initiated.

¶21

We have considered the said stand.

¶22

3 953.wp.149.25

¶23

We fail to understand the failure of the respondent of having not taking any steps in the matter of acquisition of the land once the purchase notice was served on them.

¶24

The very object with which the respondent No.2 was created was to have development in the public interest on the land and it is upon his request, the land in question was earmarked in the development plan for public project to be implemented by the said respondent.

¶25

The fact remains that the respondent No.2 has though claimed amount, to be paid towards compensation from the State Government, the same was not released by the State Government.

¶26

As a sequel of above, rightly so the petitioner is claiming release of the land from the clutches of the reservation as the purchase notice was not honoured by the respondent for want of financial aid.

¶27

We fail to understand, once the area is earmarked for providing public amenities by the respondent No.2, what prompted the respondent No.2 who is duty bound in law and his failure to execute such project. The least that was expected of the State Government was to cater the requirement of the respondent No.2 to acquire the land in question by executing a sale-deed in their favour, however, it is the respondent No.1’s failure which has resulted into the land being released from the acquisition.

¶28

4 953.wp.149.25

¶29

We make it clear that the copy of this order be placed before the respondent No.1, who shall be sensitive to the purpose for which the respondent No.2 has sought the funds viz. for the purpose of acquisition of the land so as to provide better civic and public amenities.

¶30

In this background, the petition stands allowed. 13. We hereby declare that the land of the petitioner which is reserved by the respondent No.2 is released from the reservation and consequential notification to that effect be issued within a period of six weeks from today.

¶31

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶32

RGurnule

Nine Star Multiservices Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Director, Shankar Gokulprasad Agrawal v. State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nine Star Multiservices Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Director, Shankar Gokulprasad Agrawal v. State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chanda Wd/O Hari Kursunge and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary for Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Sapna Marotrao Gotmare and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Finance Department, Mumbai and Another Vs Prakash Gulabrao Kale

Raju Tukaram Dakhore vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Dept of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Other

Yeshwant Motiramji Mate Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mumbai and Others

Imaran S/O Manjoor Khan vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Saoner Th. Saoner Dist. Nagpur