Bombay High Court
Sangli Miraj and Kapwad City Municipal Corpn.
Versus
Bal Krishna Haribhau
Decided On:

Headnote:Sections 126 and 127-Compulsary acquisition of land-Under Development Plan land of respondent reserved for school and play ground - No step for acquisition taken by development authority within 10 years of development plan-Purchase notice for said land received by Municipal Council-Acquisition proceedings already pending on date purchase notice received-Held, thus even after expiry of 10 years land continues to be reserved.- Thus, it is clear that even after the expiry of 10 years, the land continues to be reserved. Perusal of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Act shows that if any land is reserved for any public purpose in the development plan, the planning authority can make an application to the State Government for acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act. It is thus clear that the petitioner was within its powers in making an application by submitting proposal for acquisition of the land in 1991. It is clear from the provisions of Section 126 that after the planning authority submits an application for compulsory acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, it is for the State Government to decide whether to acquire the land compulsorily or not. It is clear that after the petitioner submitted proposal for acquisition of the land in 1991, that decision was taken by the State Government in the year 1996 when notification under Section 6 was issued in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Act. Thus, it is clear that the date on which the purchase notice was served by the land owner on the planning authority, the proposal submitted by the planning authority for compulsory acquisition of the land was already pending. Therefore, in the present case, there was no question of the planning authority again taking steps for compulsory acquisition of the land. The requirement of taking steps for acquisition of land after purchase notice is served was satisfied in the present case as such step was already taken by the planning authority and, therefore, under the provision of Section 127 of the said Act, even after a period of 6 months, there \-vas no question of reservation lapsing.

       Section 47-Appeal to state - Limitation-State Government not justified in entertaining two appeal filed under Section 47 beyond the period of 40 days.-If the appeal is entertained beyond limitation, the order passed ill such appeal is rendered without jurisdiction and the question about jurisdiction, can be raised for the first time before High Court. In so far as the submission of the learned Advocate General that the appeal provided by Section 47 is an administrative appeal and, therefore, the period of limitation is not to be strictly insisted upon is concerned, the right of appeal is always creation of a statute. Therefore, the right to file an appeal has to be governed strictly by the statute which creates that right. If Section 47 empowers the State Government to hear an appeal if filed within 40 days of the communication of the order impugned in the absence of provisions in the statute further empowering the State Government to entertain the appeal filed beyond the period of 40 days, the State Government would not be justified in entertain the appeal.

       For Citation : AIR 1999 Bom 390 at pp. 394, 395