Back
2008 Supreme(Bom) 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C. L. Pangarkar, J.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RISOD
vs.
RAMESHCHANDRA SHANKARLAL SABU (Dr.) and others- Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 622 of 2006
Decided on : 8-1-2008
Advocate Appeared:
For appellant: Mrs. Anjali Joshi
For respondent No.1: K H Deshpande, Senior Counsel and S. R. Deshpande
For respondent Nos. 2 and 3: D. M Kale, A.G.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, regarding the lapsing of reservations and the completion of the acquisition process within the specified time, must be strictly complied with, and the court will not extend the time for acquisition based on subsequent actions such as the filing of a writ petition.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 127
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sought declaration that land stood dereserved due to non-completion of acquisition process within 6 months as per section 127 of the Act. Defendants contended that the process of acquisition was still in progress and plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit.
Finding of the Court:
First Appellate Court held that the land stood de-reserved because the process of acquisition was not completed within 6 months after service of the notice. Second Appellate Court affirmed the finding and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the land stood dereserved due to non-completion of acquisition process within 6 months as per section 127 of the Act? 2. Whether the time for acquisition could be said to have been extended due to the filing of a writ petition by the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the land stood dereserved as the acquisition process was not completed within 6 months as mandated by section 127 of the Act. The court also ruled that the filing of a writ petition did not extend the time for acquisition as mandated by the law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no substance in the appeal.
2. The facts shorn of details are as under –
Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is the owner of field S. No. 1011 of village Risod, Distt. Washim. There is a Municipal Council at Risod. The Development Authority prepared a Development Plan for said Municipal area of Risod, Survey No. lOll belonging to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 came to be reserved for the weekly market and cattle market by a sanction dated 23-11-1985. On 1-1-1986, the Government issued a Notification reserving the said land for the said purpose and giving out its intention to acquire the said land. In spite of the Notification in respect of the Development Plan, the defendants failed to acquire the said land. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a notice on 5-2-1996 to defendants calling upon them to purchase the land. After receipt of this notice, it is alleged that the appellant-defendant No.3 passed resolution to acquire the said land. On 11-71996, accordingly a proposal was sent by defendant No.3 to defendant No.1 for acquisition of the said land. However, the process of acquisition was not completed within period of six months. The plaintiff, therefore, submits that since the process of acquisition was not completed within period of six months as contemplated by section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') the land stood deserved. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a declaration to that effect by filing the suit.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds. It is the contention of the defendants that since the resolution of acquisition was passed and the proposal was sent to the Collector, it cannot be said that the land has been deserved. It was contended that the process of land acquisition was still in progress and the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit.
4. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit, holding that there could be no reservation as contended by the plaintiff. The Appellate Court, however, disagreed with the findings of the learned trial Court and held that the land stood de-reserved because the process of acquisition was not completed within period of six months after service of the notice. Being aggrieved by that finding and the decree passed by the first Appellate Court, defendant No. 3 has preferred this appeal.
5. While the appeal was pending before the Appellate Court, the plaintiff respondent No. 1 had filed Writ Petition No. 1127 of 2001 before this Court seeking a direction to the Development Authorities and the Government to acquire the land and this writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn when the Government Pleader made a statement that the Government would complete the process of acquisition within period of six months.
6. This Court by Order dated 2-4-2007 had directed that the appeal shall be heard finally at the stage of admission itself.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, the following substantial questions of law arise for determination.
l(a) Whether the act of defendant No. 3 - appellant in passing the Resolution on 2-7-1996 to acquire the land and forwarding a proposal on 11-7-1996 to Collector to acquire it could be said to be a step taken under section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act and therefore the land could not be said to be dereserved?
(b) If no, what is the effect thereof?
2. Where the filing of a writ petition by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 seeking direction against defendants to acquire the land and Court directing on 12-7-2001 to complete the process within six months from the date of the order, the time under section 127 of the Act for acquisition could be said to have been extended?
8. Before proceeding to give reasons to answer the above subs
