The deletion of a reservation for public purposes in a revised development plan renders the acquisition proceedings and the Award unenforceable if the specified public purpose for which the land was acquired ceases to exist before the date of vesting.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966 - SECTION 126, 31, 37 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 6, 9, 11 - PUBLIC PURPOSE - DELETION OF RESERVATION - VALIDITY OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CORRIGENDUM - ENFORCEABILITY OF AWARD - VESTING OF LAND - SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS - WRIT PETITION - RELIEF - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the appropriate authority under section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, culminating in the impugned Award dated 23rd September 1989 made under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1984. The land in question was reserved for public purposes in the development plan sanctioned in 1980, but the reservation was deleted in a revised development plan sanctioned in 1993. The petitioners argued that the deletion of the reservation rendered the acquisition proceedings and the Award unenforceable.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the revised development plan sanctioned in 1993 was valid and binding on all parties. The subsequent corrigendum issued by the State Government purporting to reinstate the reservation was held to be a nullity as it was not issued in accordance with the prescribed procedure under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Court further held that the acquisition proceedings and the Award were unenforceable since the specified public purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to exist before the date of vesting.
Issues: 1. Whether the revised development plan sanctioned in 1993 was valid and binding on all parties? 2. Whether the subsequent corrigendum issued by the State Government purporting to reinstate the reservation was valid? 3. Whether the acquisition proceedings and the Award were unenforceable since the specified public purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to exist before the date of vesting?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the revised development plan sanctioned in 1993 was valid and binding on all parties as it was sanctioned by the State Government in exercise of its power under section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 as a result of a conscious decision taken by the State Government. 2. The Court held that the subsequent corrigendum issued by the State Government purporting to reinstate the reservation was a nullity as it was not issued in accordance with the prescribed procedure under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 3. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings and the Award were unenforceable since the specified public purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to exist before the date of vesting, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Industrial Development and Investment Company Private Limited and another v. State of Maharashtra and others.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned Award and the acquisition notices pertaining to the petition land, and restrained the respondents from disturbing the possession of the petitioners in respect of the petitioners' land in enforcement of the impugned award. The petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession of the land pertaining to a 30-meter wide road to the Nashik Municipal Corporation within two weeks.

JUDGMENT - DHANUKA D.R., J.:—By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned acquisition proceedings commenced by the appropriate authority in respect of the land bearing Gat No. 808/2 in Nasik City commenced under section 126 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 culminating in impugned Award dated 23rd September, 1989 made under section 11 of Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1984.

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land bearing Gat No. 808/2 situate in Nasik City. The land under acquisition consists of land bearing 85 acres i.e. about 8500 sq.mtrs. forming part of the land bearing Gat No. 808/2.

3. On 29th November, 1980, the development plan in respect of Nasik City came into force after the same was duly sanctioned by the State Government. In the said development plan, the petition land, was reserved for public purposes namely stables and 100 ft. wide road.

4. At the instance of Nasik Municipal Corporation, proceedings for acquisition of the petition land were commenced. On 14th July, 1987, a notification was issued by the Commissioner, Nasik Division, bearing Notification No. 2030/87 as contemplated under section 126(2) and 126(4) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1894 for acquisition of the land in accordance with the above referred reservation. On 6th August, 1987, the said notification was duly published in Maharashtra Government Gazette. The said notification was later on published in local newspaper and was published also in Village Chawdi. Notices were issued to the individual owners as contemplated under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894.

5. On 25th September, 1989, this petition was filed. On 27th September, 1989, the impugned award was declared and published. The petition was admitted by Division Bench of the Court and ad interim relief was granted in term of prayer (d) of the petition. In view of the above referred order of injunction, the respondents were restrained from proceeding with the acquisition of land admeasuring 85 acres and from taking possession of the said land forming part of Gat No. 606/2.

6. There is no much merit in the challenge to the acquisition proceeding in so far as the cause of action was formulated by petitioners on the date when the petition was filed. The petitioners however appear to have a strong case for setting aside of the said award on the ground that the reservation made in the development plan in respect of the petition land as far back as on 29th November, 1980 was lawfully deleted by the State Government by its notification dated 28th June 1993 published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 30th September, 1993. It was held by Division Bench of our High Court in the case of (Industrial Development and Investment Company Private Limited and another v. State of Maharashtra others)1, reported in 1988(4) Bom.C.R. 423 that the public purpose specified in declaration must continue to exist until land vests in the State. It appears to be well settled law that if the specified public purpose cease to exist before the date of vesting, the Award in question becomes unenforceble and the acquisition proceedings lapse. In this petition, the principal question required to be decided is as to whether having regard to the facts of this case, the petitioners are entitled to invoke the ratio of the judgement of this Court in the above referred case.

7. There is no much dispute about the relevant facts having bearing on this aspect of the controversy in view of clear statements appearing in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, on behalf of Nasik Municipal Corporation and Government of Maharashtra.

8. On or about 26th December, 1990, the revised draft development plea was submitted by Nashik Municipal Corporation to the State Government for making of certain modifications including in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 8

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1994 Supreme(Bom) 584

The deletion of a reservation for public purposes in a revised development plan renders the acquisition proceedings and the Award unenforceable if the specified public purpose for which the land was acquired ceases to exist before the date of vesting.

Cases Referred (1)