SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 1791

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 11258 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.30524 of 2014) with Civil Appeal No(s)…OF 2017(Arising out of SLP(C) No. ….of 2017) (Arising out of SLP(C) No.....CC No. 18016 of 2016) with Civil Appeal No(s) ….OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No..... of 2017) (Arising out of SLP(C) No.....CC No. 17953 of 2016)
Decided On : 24-08-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atul Chitale, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pravin Naik, Adv., Mr. Gurjyot Sethi, Adv., Ms. Shivangi Khanna, Adv., Mr. Suchitra Atul Chitale, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv., Mrs. Jayashree, Adv., Ms. Paromita Majumdar, Adv., Ms. Sukriti Jaggi, Adv., M/s. J S Wad And Co, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dilpreet Singh, AOR Mr. Devansh V. Mohta, Adv., Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv., Mr. Amit B. T., Adv., Mr. N. Nayak, Adv., M/s. S.M. Jadhav And Company, AOR Mr. Kunal A. Cheema, Adv., Mr. Yogesh Ahirrao, Adv., Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR

The duty of State Authorities to preserve open spaces and the importance of reservation for public parks in the development scheme.

Headnote:

MRTP Act - Reservation of Property for Garden - Section 127 of the MRTP Act - Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors. [(1991) 4 SCC 54] - Duty of State Authorities to Preserve Open Spaces - Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 549 - Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2715 - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) Supp. SCC 131 - M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213 - Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 162

Fact of the Case:

The disputed property was reserved for a garden in the development plan under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The reservation lapsed, and the land was deemed to be released from such reservation, but the Corporation appealed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The reservation had lapsed due to the failure of the State Authorities to act timely, but the area was still required for a public park. The court directed that the land shall continue to be reserved and used for the public garden, and compensation shall be determined and paid in accordance with the principles laid down in the 2013 Act.

Issues: Lapse of reservation, duty of State Authorities to preserve open spaces, and determination of compensation under the 2013 Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The duty of State Authorities to preserve open spaces and the importance of reservation for public parks in the development scheme.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the order passed by the High Court was set aside, and compensation was directed to be determined and paid in accordance with the principles laid down in the 2013 Act.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The facts in short giving rise to the present appeal indicate that way back in the year 1967 the disputed property was reserved for a garden in the development plan, prepared under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short 'the MRTP Act'). The said development plan was revised in the year 1991-1992. The reservation of the disputed property was further continued for the purpose of a garden. On 5.10.1992, the respondent No's 2 to 12 and deceased named Sitaram V. Deorukhkar entered into an agreement for sale dated 5.10.1992, in favour of respondent No. 13. On 18.10.1992, the power of attorney had been executed in favour of respondent no. 13 to institute a suit in relation to the property. Power of attorney served a notice for purchase under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 25.07.2007. The Municipal Corporation gave its approval to initiate the purchase proceedings of the land. On 19.10.2007, Improvement Committee, passed resolution No. 126 and recommended to the corporation to acquire the land of Village Borivali reserved for public purpose i.e. for the garden. On 21.01.2008, a proposal was submitted to the collector for the acquisition of the land in question. Thus the Corporation submitted that it had taken the effective steps within six months from the date of the purchase notice for an acquisition of the land as per the then prevailing time limit. On 25.2.2008, the Petitioner- Attorney had been informed that his application for permission to allow development on land under reference could not be considered under the provisions of the MRTP Act. Consequently, a writ petition was preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 in the High Court i.e. W.P.No. 2535 of 2008. Prayer made in the writ petition was that the reservation may be quashed and set aside as it had lapsed, and permission may be given to them to develop the said property in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. The High Court by the impugned order held that the reservation had lapsed, and that the land is deemed to have been released from the reservation, and that the area reserved for the garden has become available to the owner thereof for the purpose of development. Hence the Corporation has preferred the appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. No doubt about it that a bare reading of Section 127 of the MRTP Act makes it clear that reservation would lapse in case acquisition is not completed within ten years from the date on which a final Regional plan or final Development plan comes into force or if declaration under sub section (2) or (4) of Section 126 is not published in the official gazette within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice for purchase on the Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may be to Appropriate Authority; and if within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development, as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land at the relevant time.

5. The Municipal Corporation had filed a Map (Annexure P-4) which indicates that the area marked with the green color is reserved for the purpose of the garden, whereas the area marked with red cross marks in the green color portion is disputed portion which is encircled by the other area reserved for the garden. The land under appeal is 3090 Sq. yard, whereas the total area reserved for the garden, is 90,500 Sq. yard. The area in question had been reserved for garden and it appears that Municipal Corporation had taken the steps which were in their hands in order to pr


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top