Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
The Chalisgaon Municipal Council & Another
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department & Others
Writ Petition No. 6966 of 2013
Decided on: 29-01-2014
There cannot be any acquisition without payment of compensation and hence the obligation is that the land must not be locked indefinitely or for all times to come. There must be a definite time limit set to compel the Planning Authority or the Appropriate Authority to take steps to acquire the land. That serves a dual purpose. That gives some sort of certainty or predictability and the owner, therefore, knows that the land, if not acquired is going to be dereserved and if steps in terms of Law are not taken in that behalf. Equally, the residents have an idea as to whether the amenities and facilities sought for and indicated in the plan will be provided by the Planning Authority or Appropriate Authority. If this dual purpose is to be served and that is being served by the provisions in question, then, Court does not see how the same, in any manner, violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Article 243(w) of the Constitution of India has been referred by Mr. Dhorde. The Municipalities have been conferred powers, authority and responsibility. Under the Constitution, a Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation cannot be expected to be conferred only with powers and authorities. No power and authority or no right comes without a corresponding obligation and duty. Therefore, the law envisages responsibility of the Municipalities and each one of which is subject to the Constitution of India. However, the Legislature of a State can, by law, endow the municipalities with such powers and authority, as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self government. That the law may also contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein with respect to the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice and performance of functions and implementation of schemes, as may be entrusted to them. They include those in relation to matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule. No Municipal Council can urge that it ought to be conferred only with powers and authority without any responsibilities and duties. That would completely defeat the constitutional guarantee. If the institution of self government has to function for the benefit and in the interest of the public, then, one cannot be heard to say that the provision in question falls foul of this mandate or is ultra-vires of Article 243(w) of the Constitution of India. There is no substance in this contention.
(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Rule. Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 to 6 waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming a declaration that Section 49(7) and Section 127 of The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (For short, the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966) are ultravires Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 21A, 47 and 243(w) of the Constitution of India and therefore, are liable to be struck down. They also claim a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash and set aside the communications dated 23/02/2010 and 17/04/2010, directing petitioner No.1 to deposit 2/3rd amount of the compensation in respect of a proposed land acquisition. Prayer clause 'D' of the writ petition reads as under :
“Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the State Government to forthwith release the funds required for acquisition of lands reserved under the development plan of Chalisgaon Municipal Council for public purposes and for that purpose issue necessary orders.”
3. The few facts, which are necessary to consider the submissions of Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners are that the respondent No.1 is a Local Authority within the meaning of Section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. It is also a Planning Authority u/s 2(19) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. Petitioner No.2 is a resident of Chalisgaon Town. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra whereas respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the Authorities under the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 and the Collector of the District. We do not see any reason for respondent Nos.2 and 7, being impleaded as party respondents in this writ petition. Be that as it may, what has been alleged is that being a Planning Authority, petitioner No.1 has to take steps to maintain the municipal area by properly planning it and ensuring development of the same. The Municipal Council has certain powers and obligations, which it has to carry out and for which funds are required. These are generated in the manner set out in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the writ petition.
4. The essential grievance is that, one of the taxes namely Octroi duty has been abolished in the State. There is a Local Body Tax (L.B.T.), which is levied but presently no steps have been taken to levy, assess and recover the same in accordance with Law. Petitioner No.1 Municipal Council has lost its main source of Revenue and Income and therefore, it finds it extremely difficult and onerous to fulfill the task and obligations in terms of the Municipal Law and the Planning Law. The scheme of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 Act has been set out and what is alleged is that the sanctioned development plan envisages designations, reservations and proposals for providing educational facilities, recreation, entertainment, health, medical and other facilities so also basic amenities. There is a development plan for Chalisgaon Municipal Council limits. That has been referred to in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the writ petition.
5. What has been alleged is that the reservations cannot be implemented and carried out essentially because of the problem of funds. The Council wrote a letter to the Government to provide funds or grants so as to complete the acquisition in terms of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. However, the Land Acquisition Officer has been calling upon the Council to make funds available so as to pay compensation for an acquisition and which is in relation to one of the lands, instance of which has been set out in paragraph No.9 of the writ petition.
6. It has been alleged that several letters and detailed correspondence has followed from time to time, but the grants have not been released nor the revenue augmented. In these circumstances, the Municipal Council is constrained to question the legality and v
SupremeToday
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
