Natwarlal Nensukh Mutha and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr.

¶1

901-wp-5803-2025.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5803 OF 2025

¶4

Natwarlal Nensukh Mutha Age- 72 Yrs. Occ. Business R/o. Pardeshpura Junnar, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune.

¶5

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶6

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.03.24 10:21:53 +0530

¶7

Pooja Ashish Gavhane Age- 32 Yrs. Occ. Household R/o. Salgaon, Tal. Ambethan, Dist. Pune.

¶8

Purvesh Ashish Gavhane Age- 5 Yrs. Occ. Ni. 4. Anvi Ashish Gavhane Age- 5 Yrs. Occ. Nil. (Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 through guardian mother Pooja Ashish Gavhane/P2). 5. Anita Anil Gavhane Age- 59 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o. Salgaon, Tal. Ambegaon, Dist. Pune. 6. Shivlal Panhalal Muthiyan Age- 72 Yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, Junnar.

¶9

Ravindra Kashinath Pansare Age- 61 Yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. Kale, Post. Tambe, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune.

...1

Vishal Parekar

901-wp-5803-2025.odt

Babanrao Shripati Bombale Age- 94 Yrs. Occ. Nil. R/o. Khamgaon, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. 9. Satish Bansilal Pardeshi Age- 69 Yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. Pardespura, Junnar, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. 10. Mahesh Bansilal Pardeshi (through Sunita Mahesh Pardeshi) Age- 49 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o. Ralegaon, Post-Aptale, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. 11. Sanjay Murlidhar Valvankar Age- 62 Yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. Sadabazar Peth, Junnar, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. 12. Dhananjay Murlidhar Valvankar Age- 56 Yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. D-201, Sanskruti Building-47, Handewadi Road, Hadapsar, Pune- 28. 13. Kesharbai Murlidhar Valvankar Age- 83 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o. Sadabazar Peth, Junnar, Dist. Pune.

¶14

Shantaram Shankar Ude Age- 76 Yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. Ralegaon, Post. Aaptale, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. 15. Baban Shankar Unde Age- 71 Yrs. Occ. Business.

...2

Vishal Parekar

901-wp-5803-2025.odt

R/o. B-35, Someshwar Society, R.No.2, M.G. Complex, Sector-14, Navi Mumbai, Vashi 400 703.

¶19

Nivrutti Shankar Unde (since deceased through LRs) 16A. Sunita Nivrutti Unde Age- 59 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o. Gaonthan Ralegaon, Aaptale, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. 16B. Shital Nivrutti Unde Age- 30 Yrs. Occ. Education R/o. Gaonthan Ralegaon, Aaptale, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. 16C. Ankush Nivrutti Unde Age- 27 Yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. Gaonthan Ralegaon, Aaptale, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune.

¶20

Anil Shankar Unde Age- 47 Yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. Kiran Building, Near Eyes Hospital, Narayangaon, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune.

¶21

Savita Ramdas Shinde Age- 62 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o. Near Sai Mandir, B/13, Sahakar Sadan Society Sainagar, Kanjur Village, Bhandup (E), Mumbai 400 042.

¶22

Sangeeta Rajendra Sarjine Age- 54 Yrs.

...3

Vishal Parekar

901-wp-5803-2025.odt

Occ. Household. R/o. At-Post Aaldare, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. 20. Geetanjali Arjun Barave Age- 51 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o. D.P. Wadi Ghodapdev, Mumbai. 21. Sumitra Yashawant Chavan Age- 76 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o. Surale, Khangaon, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune.

¶27

Yashoda Shankar Unde Age- 50 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o. Surale, Khangaon, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. (through POA Satish Pardeshi/ P8). … Petitioners

¶28

Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya. 2. Junnar Municipal Council Through its Chief Officer, Tal. Junnar, Dist. Pune. … Respondents -------

¶29

Mr. Sachin Shetye a/w. Jotiram Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. Tejas Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Ronak Utagikar and Mr. Kshitij Kankaliya, for Respondent No. 2.

¶30

Smt. Neha Bhide a/w. Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the State.

¶31

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 16^th MARCH, 2026

...4

Vishal Parekar

901-wp-5803-2025.odt

ORDER JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra Ghuge, J.)

¶36

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

¶37

consent of the parties.

¶38

The Petitioners have put forth the prayer clauses (a), (b), (c)

¶39

and (d), as under:-

¶40

(a) This Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby holding and declaring that the said land of the Petitioners’ being land admeasuring 4437.40 sq.mtrs. out of City Survey No. 5217 situated at within the limits of Junnar Municipal Council which is reserved for Garden, Swimming Tank and Gymnasium as per Revised Development Plan dated 23^rd July, 2010 which came into force on 15^th September, 2010 vide SiteNo. 59 (EP-16) has lapsed as per provisions of under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

¶41

(b) This Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby holding and declaring that the said land is released from the said reservations, allotment or designation and has become available to the Petitioners for the purpose of development.

¶42

(c) This Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby quashing and setting aside reservation of Garden, Swimming Tank and Gymnasium as per Development Plan dated 23^rd July, 2010 which came into force on 15^th September, 2010 vide Site No. 59 (EP-16) over the land admeasuring 4437.40 Sq.Mtrs. out of the City Survey No. 5217 within the limits of the Junnar Municipal Council.

¶43

(d) This Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondent Government to forthwith notify the lapsing of reservation of said land by an order published in the Official Gazette as required under Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

...5

Vishal Parekar

901-wp-5803-2025.odt

The Petitioners claim to be the owners of the land admeasuring 4437.40 Sq.Mtrs. from City Survey No. 5217 situated within the limits of Junnar Municipal Council. Respondent No. 2, Junnar Municipal Council published a development plan on 23^rd July, 2010 and indicated the land of the Petitioners as being reserved for a Garden, a Swimming Tank and a Gymnasium. It was notified as Reserved Site No. 59 (Excluded Portion – 16). On 19^th June, 2014, the Petitioners made an application requesting Respondent No. 2 Municipal Council to remove the reservation. On 30^th June, 2014, the General Body of Respondent No. 2 passed a Resolution No. 32, indicating that the swimming tank and gymnasium was already constructed adjacent to the C.S. No. 5217 i.e. the subject land and Jijau Garden in the vicinity of around 100 Mtrs. Hence, the proposal for excluding reservation site No. 59 was sent to State Government- Respondent No. 1 herein.

¶48

Respondent No.2 published a notice on 23^rd February, 2025 in ‘Dainik Sakal’ as well as, in the Maharashtra official gazette calling for objections and suggestions within one month for deletion of the reservation No. 59. By its letter 5^th February, 2016, Respondent No. 2 communicated to Respondent No. 1 seeking modifications in the reservation as per a fresh resolution bearing No. 147 dated 30^th November, 2015 that was passed by

...6

Vishal Parekar

901-wp-5803-2025.odt

the General Body. On 18^th March, 2017, the resolution bearing No. 286 was passed approving exclusion of reservation No. 59.

¶53

On 26^th May, 2017, a public notice was published in ‘Indian Express’ by Respondent No. 2 seeking objections and suggestions on the proposed modification of releasing the land from reservation No. 59. On 2^nd January, 2023 the Petitioners served a purchase notice on Respondent No. 2 under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP) requesting it to purchase the land within a period of 24 months. The issuance of the purchase notice and its receipt by Respondent No. 2 is undisputed. On 21^st October, 2024 Respondent No. 2 called upon the Petitioners to remain present on 24^th October, 2024 before the Chief Officer, Junnar Municipal Council to consider whether the benefit of the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) could be granted in lieu of compensation. Respondent No. 2 made it clear to the Petitioners on 24^th October, 2024 that it cannot pay compensation due to a financial crunch and can offer TDR. The Petitioners have refused to accept the TDR.

¶54

It is undisputed that the purchase notice has been served and there is no objection as regards the contents of the notice by Respondent No. 2. It is also an admitted position that after the purchase notice dated 2^nd

...7

Vishal Parekar

901-wp-5803-2025.odt

January, 2023, the Council could not initiate any steps towards acquisition within 24 months, as is understood by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra¹ . So also a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shree Vinayak Builders vs. State² concludes that the owner of the land can refuse to accept TDR in lieu of compensation and his insistence on receiving compensation is not fatal to his purchase notice.

¶59

7. In view of the above, this Petition is allowed .

¶60

We direct Respondent No. 2 to issue a notification within a

¶61

period of 15 days, addressed to Respondent No. 1, declaring that reservation on site No. 59 has lapsed. The Government shall issue a notification declaring lapsing of reservation and releasing of the land within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the communication from the Municipal Council.

¶62