Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
A.H. JOSHI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Bhausaheb & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department & Others
Writ Petition Nos.6366 of 2009 & 9133 of 2013
Decided on : 03-12-2013
Land Acquisition - Dispute over acquisition of land for development plan of Shirdi Town - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1960, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 126(2)(3)(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1960 and its relationship with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court relied on precedents to conclude that the MRTP Act is a complete code in itself and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are only referred to for the determination of compensation. The court held that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 126(2)(3)(4) of the MRTP Act is not open for further scrutiny.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the acquisition of land for the development plan of Shirdi Town. The petitioners objected to the acquisition and challenged the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1960 (MRTP Act) on the grounds of constitutional validity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MRTP Act is a complete code in itself and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are only referred to for the determination of compensation. The court held that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 126(2)(3)(4) of the MRTP Act is not open for further scrutiny.
Issues: The issues involved the dispute over land acquisition for the development plan of Shirdi Town and the constitutional validity of Section 126(2)(3)(4) of the MRTP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to conclude that the MRTP Act is a complete code in itself and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are only referred to for the determination of compensation. The court held that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 126(2)(3)(4) of the MRTP Act is not open for further scrutiny.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs. The court held that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 126(2)(3)(4) of the MRTP Act is not open for further scrutiny.
A.H. Joshi, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. Facts involved in the case are not disputed. Case pertains to a dispute as regards acquisition of land done for the purpose of development plan of Shirdi Town. The draft development plan of Shirdi town was proposed, duly notified and was finalized after hearing all objections. The Final development plan was notified in official Gazette. The petitioners confirm these facts in the body of the writ petitions.
3. Writ petition No.6366 of 2009 was filed on 28.9.2009. During pendency of the petition, the land acquisition proceedings were completed. It is not in dispute that in furtherance to notice dated 1.3.2008, under Sections 9 (3) and 9(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, the writ petitioners had objected to the land acquisition, stating that the objections raised by the petitioners before the Honourable Minister thereby praying for deletion of their lands from the acquisition, is pending. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6366 of 2009 refrain from furnishing their claims relating to compensation.
4. The dates and events supplied by the petitioners are summarized for convenience as follows:-
(A) WRIT PETITION NO.6366 OF 2009
Bhausaheb Murlidhar Gondkar and others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
Sr. Date Particulars of events
1 15.12.1992 The Development Plan of Shirdi Municipal Council was finalized and approved by the Government of Maharashtra and the same was published in the Government Gazette.
2 25.2.1993 The Development Plan of Shirdi Municipal Council came into force.
3 15.12.1992 Two ring roads were shown in the sanctioned Development Plan.
4 1980 Father of the petitioners had constructed a residential house in the agricultural land owned by him before commencement of Development Plan.
5 21.2.2008 Collector, Ahmednagar published a Notification under section 126(4) of the MRTP Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of acquisition of land for construction of internal ring road.
6 Immediately after petitioners came to know about the notification for initiation of acquisition proceedings, petitioners approached the Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department and prayed for modifications in the Development Plan. The petitioners requested to delete internal ring road from the Development Plan since the same was no longer necessary.
7 16.4.20087.5.2008 The Minister of State for Urban Development called meeting in his chamber and the same was adjourned. All the concerned officers were directed to remain present on 7.5.2008 in the chamber of Hon'ble Minister of State for Urban Development along with record.
7A 7.5.2008 The meeting was held in the chamber of Honourable Minister.
8 21.6.2008 The Desk Officer to Government Urban Development Department circulated the minutes of the meeting held on 7.5.2008 seeking comments as regards the changed alignment of 18 m wide internal ring road.
9 16.6.2008 The request of the petitioners for deleting internal ring road from the Development Plan was turned down.
10 21.7.2008 The petitioners approached the Hon'ble for Urban Development Department and requested to call for report from the concerned authorities.
11 10.7.2008 Meanwhile, the Desk Officer to Government, Urban Development Department has called all concerned for spot inspection report changing the alignment of the internal ring road.
12 1.3.2008 Meanwhile, the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur has issued notices under Section 9(3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act on 1.3.2008.
13 12.3.2008 Petitioners have submitted an objection to the construction of internal ring road pursuant to the notice, urging that petitioners' representation against acquisition was pending before Honourable Minister.
(B) WRIT PETITION NO.9133 OF 2013
Sau. Sanjivani Dashrath Mahambre and others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
Sr. Date Particulars of events
1 1926 The petitioners' father was residing in Shirdi sinc
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
