SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
MOHANDAS AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2020 (@ SLP(C)NO. 20585 OF 2015)
Decided on : 29-01-2020
(a) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 127, 126 and 49(7) - Development Plan coming into force on 24.08.1984 - Declaration u/s 126(4) issued on 03.09.1992, within 10 years of the Development Plan coming into force - Notice u/s 127 therefore would be ineffective - Appellant not entitled to any relief. (Para 26)
(b) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 38 - Revision of Development Plan - No stipulation that revision must be undertaken and finalized immediately before the expiry of 20 years from the date of the original final Development Plan - Period of 20 years applicable where Planning Authority wishes to exercise power of revision of the Plan - Government may direct revision at any time. (Para 31)
(c) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 127 - Lapsing of reservation - Original final development plan coming into force on 24.08.1984 - Declaration u/s 126(4) issued in 1992, within 10 years of the Development Plan coming into force - Revised draft development plan notified in 2007 and final revised plan coming into force in 2012 - Both plans reserving appellant’s land for shopping complex - No notice u/s 126(4) issued so far - Appellant can give notice u/s 127 and seek lapsing of reservation if no action is taken by respondents for ten years. (Para 32)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are the owners of different plots of land totally admeasuring 0.52 hectares. They purchased the land on 02.01.2006. Under the Development Plan the entire land owned by the appellants was reserved for construction of shopping complex. First respondent and the fourth respondent, however, did not take any steps. The Plan was enforced from 1984. The erstwhile owners of the property issued a notice dated 09.06.2004 calling upon the fourth respondent to initiate necessary steps for acquiring the land. Though a draft Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it was dropped on account of non availability of funds. It is the further case of the appellant that appellant had submitted proposal for regularization of the layout carved out Plan over the said land. Again, the revised draft Plan showed that the appellants property was reserved for shopping complex and vegetable market. On 15.05.2012, the final Development Plan of Gondia (Second Revised Scheme) came into effect wherein the appellants’ property is shown as reserved for shopping complex and vegetable market. The Writ Petition was filed. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court;
Appellant is not entitled to any relief.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J. - Leave granted.
2. Appellants are the petitioners before the High Court of Bombay. By the impugned Judgment, the Writ Petition filed by them stands dismissed.
3. The prayers sought by the appellants are as follows:
"(A) Quash and set aside the Reservation No. S - 169 in the Final Development Plan of Gondia (Second Revised), whereby the land bearing Survey Nos. 405/1, 406/2, 407/2, 410/2 and 411 of Mouza - Gondia (Bk.), Tehsil & District - Gondia, belonging to the petitioners is reserved for Shopping Complex and Vegetable Market (Annexure "3").
(B) Hold and declare that the land bearing Survey Nos. 405/1, 406/2, 407/2, 410/2 and 411 of Mouza - Gondia (Bk.), Tehsil & District - Gondia, are not reserved for the development of Shopping Complex and Vegetable market vide Reservation No.S - 169 in the Final Development Plan of Gondia (Second Revised) and that the petitioners are free to use and develop the said land as true lawful and absolute owners thereof as per the user for the adjacent land provided under the Final Development Plan of Gondia (Second Revised) (Annexure "3")."
4. Briefly, their case, before the High Court, is as follows:
Appellants are the owners of different plots of land totally admeasuring 0.52 hectares. They purchased the land on 02.01.2006. A Development Plan was issued under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). Under the Development Plan issued, the entire land owned by the appellants was reserved for construction of shopping complex. First respondent and the fourth respondent (State of Maharashtra and the Municipal Council, Gondia), however, did not take any steps. The Plan was enforced from 1984. The erstwhile owners of the property issued a notice dated 09.06.2004 under Section 127 of the Act calling upon the fourth respondent to initiate necessary steps for acquiring the land. The Municipal Council held a meeting on 15.02.2005. It was alleged that the fourth respondent decided, by Resolution, not to acquire the land. Reference is placed on letters of 07.04.2005 and 08.04.2005 intimating that the land was free to be used and developed in accordance with the user of adjacent lands. Though a draft Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it was dropped on account of non availability of funds. It is the further case of the appellant that appellant had submitted proposal for regularization of the layout carved out Plan over the said land. In the meantime, a revision of the Development Plan was contemplated and a Draft Plan was published followed by public notice. Again, the revised draft Plan showed that the appellants property was reserved for shopping complex and vegetable market. Appellants objected to the same. Appellants were called for hearing by the fourth respondent. Appellants immediately thereafter approached the first respondent with detailed representation. On 15.05.2012, the final Development Plan of Gondia (Second Revised Scheme) came into effect. The appellants property is shown as reserved for shopping complex and vegetable market. It is essentially on these facts and complaining of inaction on the notice given by their predecessors in the interest under Section 127 of the Act and contending that the reservation in the Development Plan has ceased to exist, the Writ Petition was filed seeking reliefs, as noted by us. The Writ Petition was opposed. The High Court, by the impugned Order, dismissed the Writ Petition.
5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants Shri Shekhar Naphade. We also heard the learned Counsel for the first respondent - State of Maharashtra. There was no representation on behalf of the fourth respondent - Municipal Council.
6. Shri Naphade, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the Development Plan, reserving the property of the appellants, was made way back in the year 1984. A notice was given within the meaning of Section 127 of the Act. As there was no
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.
Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association
Girnar Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra
Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra
Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satvabhamabai Bhimaii Dawkher
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.