2005 Supreme(Bom) 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C. V. Shah, A. V. Bhat
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided On Date : 02/05/05

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1968, Section 22(g) - Land acquired for public purposes - Site not for timber industry - Establishment of timber industry challenged - Ground - Land not for public purpose - Held, a land reserved for public purpose including plans for any specified area of comprehensive development, deemed to be land needed for public purposes under the Act of 1894. - Section 22(g) provides for proposals for designation of sites for service industries, industrial estates and any other development on an extensive scale. The expression "any other development on an extensive scale" occurring in Section 22(g) is of wide import and would take into fold the development of site such as for the purposes of timber industry. The development of 21 hectares of land for the timber industry is surely the development on an extensive scale. Merely because the cost of acquisition is to be borne by the Association of Timber Merchants, the purpose of development of the land for the timber industry shall not cease to be the public purpose. In this view of the matter, Court is unable to agree with the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioners that the designation of the subject land in the revised development plan notified is not for the public purpose. Pertinently under Section 125 of the MRTP Act, 1966, any land required, reserved or designated in a development plan for a public purpose or purposes including plans for any area of comprehensive development is deemed to be land needed for a public purpose within meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

       Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (37 of 1966) - Sections 22(b) and 127 - Land acquired for public purposes - Timber industry proposed - Suit land not for industrial purposes - Held designation of land for markets whether of Government, local authority or private association, is covered by clause (a) of Section 22 and would be well under public purpose. - Clause (b) of Section 22 refers to the provision of development of land for public purpose, inter alia, ’markets’. In the development plan, the designation of the 21 hectares of land including the subject land situated at village Munjeri is for Timber Industries’. The expression ’Timber Industries’ seems to have been loosely used for the Timber Market. This becomes apparent from the fact that it is not part of Industrial Zone and it also clarifies that Timber Market at Bhavani Peth shall continue as Timber Market at Bhavani Peth shall continue as Timber Market. Thus the designation of subject land for Timber Industry or in other words Timber Market is not excluded from Clause (b) of Section 22. Clause (b) of Section 22 does not contemplate reservation only for Government markets or the markets of local authority as a public purpose. The designation of land for markets whether of the Government, local authority or private association of persons is covered by Clause (b) and would be a public purpose.

       Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (37 of 1966) - Section 127 - Reservation - Lapsing of - Notice issued to Commissioner of Corporation - Corporation contended notice not issued to proper authority nor it was in proper form - Notice under Section 127 to meet sufficient compliance and should provide maximum informations to appropriate authority in proper manner. - The expression "serve notice........to that effect" cannot be construed to mean that in the notice it is mandatorily required to be stated that the subject land is reserved/designated/allotted in the development plan and that the land has not been acquired within 10 years from the date on which the final regional plan or final development plan came into force or that no proceedings in relation to that land for acquisition has commenced either under the MRTP Act or under the Land Acquisition Act within 10 years. The object of the notice under Section 127 is to inform the Authority mentioned therein to acquire the land which is designated, reserved or allotted in the final development plan. The notice need not set out all the facts and details of the reservation/designation or that the said land has not been acquired within 10 years of the coming into force of the final development plan. The word ’Notice’ denotes an intimation to the party concerned of a particular fact. Notice may take several forms. Form of notice under Section 127 is not prescribed, therefore, the notice under Section 127 shall meet the sufficient compliance if notice describes the land in sufficient clarity and requires the Planning Authority or the Development Authority or the appropriate authority, as the case may be to acquire or compulsorily purchase the land so reserved, allotted or designated in the development plan.

       Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (37 of 1966) - Section 127 - ’To that effect’ - Meaning with reference to issuance of notice - Land still not acquired - At this stage no steps could be taken in stipulated period - Reservation deemed to be lapsed - Implication of notice provided under Section 127 lapsing of reservation. - The expression "to that effect" means having that result or implication. In Section 127 after the expression "to that effect" there is semi colon (;) and it provides that if within six months from the date of service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps for acquisition are commended, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed. The result or implication of that notice is, thus, provided in Section 127 and that is the lapsing of reservation.

       Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (37 of 1966) - Section 127 - Reservation lapsed - Notice issued for acquired law - Section 127 not followed - Challenged - Plea no authority available under Section 127 to acquire land - Held - Designation of subject land in development plan lapsed as authority failed to take any steps for acquisition of land in given time. - The designation of the subject land in the development plan of Pune Municipal Corporation has lapsed as the planning authority failed to take any steps for acquisition of the subject land either before the service of the purchase notice or within six months from the date of the service of the purchase notice.

       Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (37 of 1966) - Section 127 - Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, Section 68(1) and (2) - Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner - Authorities whether equally empowered to acquire land - Application of Assistant Commissioner to Collector for acquisition of prescribed land vide Section 68 of Act of 1966 - Section 152 of MRTP Act excludes the authority - Held with aid of Section 68 of BPMC Act function of planning authority cannot be performed by Municipal Commissioner - Accordingly letter issued vide Section 68(2) BPMC Act is of no relevance. - The letter sent by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner to the concerned Collector cannot be held to be an application by the planning authority to the Collector for acquisition of the subject land for want of any legal authority to him in that regard. Section 68(2) of the BPMC Act does not improve the case as there is nothing on record to show that the Commissioner has empowered the Assistant Commissioner in this regard by written order after obtaining approval from the Standing Committee. Moreover what Commissioner himself cannot do even with the aid of Section 68(1) of the BPMC Act, a fortiori, the Assistant Commissioner cannot do by virtue of Section 68(2). The proposal, thus, sent by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner to the Collector, Land Acquisition Department cannot be said to be lawful proposal by the planning authority to the State Government and for that matter, to the concerned Collector for the acquisition of the subject land.

       Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (37 of 1966) - Sections 127 and 136 - Legality of notice under - To Commissioner and not to planning authority - Allegation of illegal notice - Principal officer being Commissioner notice sent to him is duly served on the appropriate authority - It is a good service. - The expression "any person" is too wide and comprehensive and includes both natural and unnatural person. That would include the local authority is clear from Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 136 itself. Court may immediately notice here that the planning authority is defined as ’local authority’ in Section 2(19) and the ’local authority’ in Section 2(15) means, inter alia, the Municipal Corporation constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (For short, ’BPMC Act’). That the Pune Municipal Corporation is the Municipal Corporation constituted under the BPMC Act is not in doubt.

       Moreover, Section 152 of the MRTP Act, 1966 also provides that the powers and functions of the planning authority shall inter alia for the purposes of Section 136 be exercised and performed in the case of Municipal Corporation by the Municipal Commissioner or such other officer as he may be appointed in this behalf. Thus, the notice contemplated in Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966 on the planning authority if served on its Principal Officer is a good service.

       Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (37 of 1966) - Sections 152, 136 and 127 - Notice to Commissioner - Validity of - Mentioned "any person" - Contention, it does not include plans for a public purpose - Any person being too wide includes natural as well as unnatural person - In case notice is served to Principal Officer of local authority it shall be deemed to be served to proper person.