Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 704
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
M/s. Varad Enterprises, Parbhani, through its Partner, Sau. Pushpalata
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Writ Petition No. 9058 of 2011
Decided on : 30-03-2012
For the Petitioner:Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate. For the
Respondents: K.G. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the existing, operative, and applicable rules in granting permissions for Non-Agricultural use and the need for permissions to be in conformity with the relevant development control rules and not influenced by proposed modifications.
Headnote:
N.A. use - Land Permission - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 44, 45, 46, 154, 37(1), 37(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, particularly focusing on the authority of the District Collector to grant permission for Non-Agricultural use and the powers of the planning authority in granting development permissions. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to the existing, operative, and applicable rules and the need for permissions to be in conformity with the relevant development control rules and not influenced by proposed modifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission for Non-Agricultural use of land, facing reluctance from the District Collector. The petitioner had complied with necessary requirements and received no objection certificates from various authorities. The District Collector, however, refused permission citing width requirements for internal roads.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Collector had over-travelled his authority and trod on an area concerning the Planning authority. The court quashed the communication showing reluctance to grant permission for Non-Agricultural use and directed the District Collector to carry forward the proposal/application of the Petitioner in accordance with the law.
Issues: Reluctance of the District Collector to grant permission for Non-Agricultural use, compliance with width requirements for internal roads, and the authority of the District Collector in granting such permissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the existing, operative, and applicable rules and the need for permissions to be in conformity with the relevant development control rules and not influenced by proposed modifications.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order/communication issued by the District Collector and the planning authority were quashed and set aside. The District Collector was directed to carry forward the proposal/application of the Petitioner in accordance with the law.
DESHMUKH, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this court, seeking exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting aside letter dated 24.10.2011 issued by the District Collector, Jalna (Respondent No.2) and mandamus to him to issue ‘Sanad' in favour of the Petitioner, granting permission for Non Agricultural use ("N.A. use" for short) in respect of lands bearing survey Nos. 238/3,4,5 and 6, for an area admeasuring 59,530 sq. meter, situated at Partur, District Jalna.
3. The petition concerns reluctance of Respondent No. 2 to grant permission for N.A. use.
4. According to the petitioner, on purchase of land bearing survey Nos. 238/3 to 6 admeasuring 6 Hectare, 45 Are situated at Partur in District Jalna, it had prepared a layout plan and applied to competent authority-Respondent No.2 for grant of N.A. use permission. Respondent No. 2 under letter dated 12.7.2010, had informed, inter alia, that the width of internal road is required to be nine meter instead of six. The proposal, as such, had been turned down by Respondent No.2. Thereupon, by letter dated 10.8.2010, the petitioner had brought to the notice of Respondent No.2 that the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and Non-Agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter, for brevity's sake "The 1969 Rules") provide for and allow six meter width of internal road where length of road is upto 75 meter and as such, proposal submitted for N.A. use of the land complies with the requirements. The petitioner had also approached the Town Planning Authority-Respondent No.3, for deposit of N.A. use layout scrutiny fees and had, accordingly, paid the same by challan on 13.8.2010. Certain deficiencies had again been pointed out by Respondent No. 2 under letter dated 30.8.2010 and he had purportedly rejected the proposal. The petitioner had subsequently, on 8.9.2010, submitted an application for grant of N.A. use permission, after removing the deficiencies as directed by Respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 had again directed the petitioner to comply with certain instructions. Accordingly, the petitioner had complied with necessary requirements as directed by Respondent No.2 and submitted an application to Respondent No.2, under letter dated 1.10.2010.
5. Upon aforesaid, Respondent No.3 had tentatively approved the layout plan on certain conditions under letter dated 1.10.2010. Having regard to this, Respondent No. 2, issued letter dated 16.10.2010 seeking no objections from the authorities viz. Sub Divisional Officer, Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Tahsildar, Partur, Town Planner, Jalna, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Partur, Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L. All the authorities had issued no objection certificates in favour of the petitioner. However, under letter dated 8.12.2010, Respondent No.3 purported to point out certain shortcomings and based on the same, Respondent No. 2, under letter dated 15.12.2010 purported to reject proposal of the petitioner, referring to time limit prescribed under Section 44(6) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLRC" for short) and Government Resolution dated 13.11.2001, prescribing outer limit of 90 days for granting N.A. permission.
6. The petitioner has claimed that Municipal Council, Partur, the Planning Authority, by letter dated 10.1.2011, had approved layout plan submitted by the petitioner and had also demanded betterment charges in respect of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.1,95,233.75 ps., immediately.
7. By letter dated 11.3.2011, Respondent No.2 had directed the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Partur, to measure the petitioner's land, referring to that the layout has been sanctioned tentatively on certain terms and conditions as stated in said letter. The petitioner had been charged for the same t
