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

2007 Supreme(Bom) 1367

Bombay High Court
F. I. REBELLO, R. M. SAVANT
PRAFULLA C.DAVE -Appeallant
Versus
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER -RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION 4662 Of 2006
Decided On: 09/20/2007

Advocates Appeared:
M.P.THAKUR, V.B.NAIK, V.G.MUJUMDAR, Virag V.Tulzapurkar

Headnote:Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1996 - Sections 22, 29(6), 38, 56, 126 and 127 - Dereservation of land - Notice for purchase in 1979 - Proposal to revised plan made in 1982 - Notified on 5.1.1987 - Petitioners purchased land in 1989 - Filed writ petition for dereservation in 1989 - Opposed - Revision plan notified under Section 38 of Act - Period of serving notice commences from issuance of final notification under Section 29(b) of Act - Time limit provided when which steps to be taken for acquisition - All steps of procedure for preparation and notification to be taken de novo. - The petitioners were served a notice and the six months’ period expired on 27.7.1979. It was contended by the petitioners that the reservation had lapsed and the petitioners were entitled to develop the land on their own. It was contended on behalf of the corporation that the land was originally reserved for a garden. A fresh reservation for hospital was made in the plan sanctioned by the Government in the year 1982 and as such the period of ten years has not lapsed. It was also contended that steps were taken for acquisition of the land contemplated by Sections 126 and 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. Reliance was placed on the Government Notification dated 5.1.1987. The Court noted that there was no plan sanctioned for the first time in the year 1982, but certain modifications were considered and proposals were sent in the year 1982 for reservation and also certain modification in the plan. The Court observed that does not mean that the plan itself had come in existence in 1982. The Court noted, that what was done by the draft plan as suggested in the year 1982 and approved thereafter is that the original plan sanctioned by the Government in 1966 came to be modified. It was sought to be contended relying on this judgment that the Court has taken a view that the plan as prepared under Section 38 cannot be considered to be a final development plan but is only revised plan and what is to be considered is the plan which was notified under Section 29(6). It is not possible to accept the said contention. From the facts what is clear is that before the proposal of 1982, a notice had already been sent and the period for the Planning Authority to take action had come to and end on 27.7.1979. In other words before the draft revised plan was notified the reservation had lapsed pursuant to the notice under Section 127. The original reservation was for a hospital and under the draft plan of 1982, the reservation of hospital was ought to be continued. The issue as canvassed before Court was not at all issue. In Court’s opinion therefore the judgment in Naraynan Haribhai Tamane (supra) will not support the submission as contended on behalf of the petitioners herein.

F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Heard forthwith.

( 2 ) THE subject matter is land identified under survey No. 125a/4b/2, admeasuring about 83 Ares, situated at village Aundh, Dist. Pune. The land had been kept under reservation for the public purpose of a garden in the development plan of Pune notified on 8th july, 1966. The said reservation for garden purpose was continued as per new revised Development Plan dated 5th January, 1987, draft plan of which was published in 1982. The petitioners had purchased the land from the original owners Wakde and others in the year 1989. The pune Municipal Corporation it is stated had taken no steps for acquisition of the said land within the period of 10 years from the year 1966. The present petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1989 on 29th August, 1989 for deletion and / or de-reservation of the said land from the designated public purpose i. e. garden. After filing of the petition under legal advice, the petitioners served the purchase notice dated 5th October, 1989 under section 56 read with section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as M. R. T. P. Act)with the Pune Municipal Corporation calling upon them to acquire the said land in question within a period of 6 months from the receipt of the notice. The purchase notice was received by the Pune Municipal Corporation on 3rd November, 1989 and also served on the City engineer on 16/10/1989 and Assistant Engineer, development Plan Department on 18/10/1989. As the Pune municipal Corporation did not take any action on the aforesaid purchase notice, they submitted the lay-out plan to Pune Municipal Corporation on 5th October, 1990. The lay-out plan was however rejected by the pune Municipal Corporation by letter dated 29th october, 1990 on the footing that no purchase notice was received by them and requested the petitioner for proof of the original copy. It is the petitioners case that on 3rd November, 1990 the petitioner submitted the letter along with original proof copy duly acknowledged by the City Engineer office and Commissioner of Pune municipal Corporation. Once again, on 13th December, 1990 the Pune Municipal Corporation wrote to the petitioners Architect and refused permission on the ground that the petitioners had not shown the original receipt of having served the purchase notice and as such the purchase notice was not served on the corporation. It was also informed that the said land was reserved as per the 1987 development plan for garden purpose and, therefore, the lay-out plan could not be sanctioned.

( 3 ) THE petitioners aggrieved by the said decision of the Corporation filed an Appeal under section 47 of the M. R. T. P. Act before the Urban development Minister on 29th January, 1991. The petitioners also moved a Civil Application No. 459 of 1995 for carrying out certain amendment in the Writ petition No. 5467 of 1989. The said Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1989 was dismissed for default by an order dated 12th October, 1999 and application was moved for restoration, which was allowed by order dated 10th december, 1999. As the appeal was pending, the Writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the appeal should he disposed of expeditiously within 3 months. The appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 14th July. 2003 on the ground of premature notice under section 127 of the M. R. T. P. Act as it was given by the petitioner before the completion of period of 10 years from the date of revised development plan i. e. 1987 Development Plan. In these circumstances, the present petition. ( 4 ) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. It is set out that the contention of the petitioners that they had given a purchase notice dated 5/10/1989 under section 127 of the M. R. T. P. Act is not borne out from the records of the Corporation and as such the contention that the reservation has lapsed is not tenable. The revised development plan it is stated came into



















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top