JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.: - The petitioners have filed the percent petition as trustees of Seth Bhaidas Sakhidas Charity Trust. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the Property bearing C.T.S. No. 2300 and 2304 of the Bhuleshwar Division and as such are the holders of 3042 sq. meters in C.S. No. 2300 of the Bhuleshwar Division and 134.62 sq. meters in C.S. No. 2304 of the Bhuleshwar Division. By notification dated 3rd January, 1967 the petitioners properties were notified as reserved for public purpose for recreation ground except for a small strip facing the then named Thakurdwar Road. The development plan for Greater Bombay had been accepted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.P. Act. It is averred that a legal notice dated 28th March, 1989 was addressed by their Advocate and served on the Bombay Municipal Corporation and Municipal Commissioner under section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act for acquisition of the aforesaid properties. In response to that on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 a letter was addressed to the petitioner's Advocate that with the purchase notice documents set out therein were not forwarded, by reply dated 5th June, 1989 the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were informed that it was not necessary for the petitioners to submit the documents as called for and if action was not taken petitioner would take steps to get property relieved from the reservation.

It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 inspite of 22 years having elapsed after the sanctioned plan had failed to acquire the land or to take any steps for acquisition. The respondents on the contrary under the draft revised plan had now reserved the property for Municipal Market, except for a narrow strip. It is submitted that as the respondents failed to take action pursuant to the noticed dated 28th March, 1989 the respondents were duty bound to release the petitioners property and having failed to do so had abdicated their statutory obligations and duties imposed upon them. It is pointed out that the actions and/or omissions of the respondents are illegal and they are in contravention of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 30-A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Municipal Corporation, Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association others)1, 1988(1) Bom.C.R. 578. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Notification dated 3rd January, 1967 and for a further writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to release the properties from reservation.

The petition came to be admitted on 15th April, 1991 and status quo was ordered to be maintained.

2. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 an affidavit has been filed by Shri Suhas Vishwanath Deshpande. It is set out therein that the 1st respondent in the revised development plan has dereserved and/or deleted the reservation for Recreation Ground on the Northern and Western part of the suit plot subject to the condition that the Southern part admeasuring about 2550 sq. mtrs., shall be developed for Recreation Ground by the petitioners and the said part shall be shown reserved for Recreation Ground as shown in the revised development plan. The suit plots bearing C.S. No. 2300 and 2304 of Bhuleshwar Division were admeasuring 3176.62 sq. mtrs. These plots along with adjoining lands were reserved for recreation ground in the draft development plan published on 26th May, 1983. The petitioners had approached the 2nd respondent with a request to delete the property from reservation, when the Draft Development Plan was published by respondent No. 2 for inviting suggestions/objections under section 26 of the M.R.T.P. Act. On considering the petitioners contention the Planning Authority appointed under section 28 of the M.R.T.P. Act decided to delete the reservation partly from the petitioner's property. The sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document