Allowed¶19

Ashok Jaysingh Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Mar 2025WP/6440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 127 MRTP Act 1966; lapse of development plan reservation; deemed lapse after notice; Reservation No.146 Hospital; Reservation No.147 Vegetable Market; Regional Development Plan dated 01/09/1998; Survey No.215/1/43 village Datala Tq. Distt. Chandrapur; non-acquisition of reserved land; writ petition allowed; State to publish notification within four weeks; Ashok Jaysingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (Urban Development Department); WP 6440/2024; 2025:BHC-NAG:2680-DB; Nagpur Bench.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that Development Plan Reservation Nos. 146 and 147 in respect of the property stand lapsed; the State directed to publish a notification accordingly within four weeks; no order as to costs. ¶19

Ashok Jaysingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:2680-DB

¶2

WP 6440 of 2024.odt

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6440/2024

¶6

Ashok Jaysingh Thakur ...Versus…

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and another

¶8

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

Ms Manjusha Dongre, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr. A.R. Fule, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶12

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 17/03/2025

¶13

It is not disputed that the land in question of Survey No.215/1/43 admeasuring 51.65.97 HR of village Datala Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur came to be reserved for the purpose of Hospital and Vegetable Market vide Reservation Nos.146 and 147 respectively in the Regional Development Plan, dated 01/09/1998. No steps for acquiring the same were taken, as a result of which, on 31/12/2020 a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966 was issued to the respondent No.2, the receipt of which, is not denied. In spite of the receipt of the notice, nothing has been done till date.

¶14

Though Mr. Fule, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that a proposal has been sent to the State for requisitioning the funds, and nothing has come out

¶15

WP 6440 of 2024.odt

¶16

¶17

of it, that by itself cannot be a reason, for the law not to take its own course.

¶18

In that view of the matter, since the receipt of the notice and passage of the statutory duration, thereafter, is not disputed, we have no choice than to declare that the Development Plan Reservation Nos.146 and 147 in respect of the aforesaid property stand lapsed.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. The State to publish a notification accordingly within a period of four weeks from today.

¶20

No order as to costs.

¶21

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶22

Wadkar

Ashok Jaysingh Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Jaysingh Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, 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

Shankar S/O Jaganaath Gaur Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. Commissioner, Nagpur and Another

Sohail Ahmed Ansari Khaleel Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Prasnna D/O. Ganeshrao Dalu vs Union of India, Thr. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Ors.

Shri Sambhaji Raje Shikshan Sanstha, Dongarkhandala, Thr. President, Radheshyam R. Chandak and Ors. Vs Depury Director of Education Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Tej Singh Jatan S/O Jaibir Singh Vs Union of India, through Its Principal Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Ajaykumar Kisanchandji Dudhani Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Anr.