Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY at Aurangabad
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.
Abhijit & Another – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 5154 of 2008 & 503 of 2009
Decided on: 16-02-2015
For the Petitioners:R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate with P.S. Dighe, V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate with V.D. Gunale Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3 & R6, R7, K.M Suryawanshi, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, V. Datta, R6, S.S. Manale, Advocates.
Headnote:Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 21(3), 25, 26 and 126(4) Acquisition of land. - In absence of any prayer to set aside sanction accorded by State Government under Section 31 of Act, notification issued under Section 126(4) of Act, according sanction to development plan warrants no interference. - The extensions are possible from time to time. Here, none of the extensions granted are challenged in any writ petition and hence, the question whether exercise of said power by the State Government in present matter is valid, legal or otherwise, is not required to be gone into and also not possible. None of the legal provisions can be interpreted in mode and manner conducive to defeat the purpose of or scheme of 1966 Act, It is therefore, obvious that when extension beyond a particular period is not allowed, at the most the existing land use map prepared under Section 23 may not be of any assistance and may not be used as a base to formulate development proposals. But for discarding the existing land use map so prepared, change in circumstances is must, if there is no such change and everything continues to be the same, preparation of a new existing land use map will be an empty formality and waste of public money as also time. The person like petitioners, intending to capitalize on the point of the expiry of time limit, must plead and prove the prejudice caused to him. There is no express provision in the 1966 Act any where which states or stipulates that after expiry of said period, as legislation does not envisage any further extension, the Municipal Council/Corporation must undertake exercise of preparing of existing land use map or draft development plan afresh, in each case. Even if such a consequence is presumed, the petitioners have not pointed out that in the interregnum, any development or similar activity has been carried out in the vicinity of or on their survey numbers itself as per law and it has resulted in substantially affecting the existing land use or proposed development, in so far as their survey numbers are concerned. On the contrary, none of the petitioners, before us, have pleaded anything about any construction activity or other development after declaration by the planning authority in terms of Section 23(2) of the 1966 Act.
Section 26 required the Municipal Corporation to prepare and publish a notice of draft development plan within two years from 7.12.1989. This period expired on 7.12.1991. Order dated 17.6.1994 came to be issued by the Director of Town Planning and that period was extended from 7.6.1993 to 6.12.1993. State Government then issued notification on 10.12.1997 and extended the period from 7.12.1993 to 6.12.1995. Notification was then issued on 19.1.1999 extending the period for preparation of draft development plan and for publishing notice under Section 26(1) up to 3.9.1998. Municipal Corporation has published notice in Government gazette on 3.9.1998. The ceiling of one year in aggregate has been added to Section 26(1) for the first time on 18.3.2014.
These undisputed dates on record and also given by the petitioners only in a separate chart do not show any omission to act within a stipulated period, or support the conclusion that due to alleged lapses, the entire action culminating into finalization of the development plan on 2.1.2002 needs to be set at knot. In the light of the arguments advanced, Court did not find anything wrong with the notifications issued under Section 31(1) of the 1966 Act, granting sanction to the draft development plan by the Municipal Corporation, Lalur and finalizing it. Infact there is no prayer in any of the petitions before us to set aside said sanction accorded by the State Government under Section 31 of 1966 Act.
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Both these petitions question the acquisition of land of respective petitioners for the purpose it is earmarked in final development plan of the Municipal Council, Latur (Now Municipal Corporation and is referred accordingly). Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5154/2008 is respondent no.6 in Writ Petition No.503/2009. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 503/2009, has contended that his land is being acquired to spare the lands of said respondent no.6 Abhijit who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5154/2008.
2. The matters pertain to acquisition of land for public purpose and accordingly have been heard as requested by the parties. These matters have been admitted for final hearing on 05.08.2011 and 08.08.2011 respectively and interim orders are operating against the planning authority i.e. Municipal Corporation, Latur. The fact that Municipal Council, Latur is planning authority under Section 2(19) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1966 Act” for short) is not in dispute. It had on 29th August, 1989 vide resolution no. 3 declared its intention under Section 38 read with Section 23(1) of the 1966 Act to prepare revised draft development plan for the area within its jurisdiction and its notice was published in Maharashtra government gazette dated 7.12.1989. Municipal Council after carrying out survey of the lands within its jurisdiction in terms of Section 25, proceeded under Section 26(1) of the 1966 Act, by a notice published in gazette on 03.09.1998 invited objections and suggestions to the draft development proposals for area already within its jurisdiction as also for fresh development plan about the added new area. Municipal Council, after considering the suggestions and objections received, modified some proposals and submitted the development plan so modified to State Government for sanction on 26th June, 2000 within the period as extended by the State on 4.10.2000 for its submission. On 9.2.2001, State Government sanctioned part of said development plan. On 2.1.2002, State Government, in terms of Section 31(1) of the 1966 Act, extended time till that day for sanctioning the said development plan. Accordingly, on 2.1.2002, the State Government sanctioned the draft development plan submitted by Municipal Council, Latur under Section 31 (1) of the 1966 Act as final revised development plan of old municipal limit and extended area of Latur and fixed 18.02.2002 as the date for its coming into force.
3. Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel with Shri P.S. Dighe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner – Abhijit in Writ Petition No.5154/2008 has invited attention to synopsis placed on record to urge how after notification of its decision to revise the plan, taken on 07.12.1989, the further proceeding culminating into its finalization in terms of Section 31 of “the 1966 Act” have not been taken within the stipulated time and, therefore, the final development plan is not valid. Contention is time taken at each stage is unreasonably long and therefore, acquisition of petitioners land for said purpose is unsustainable.
4. This contention is also raised by Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel with Shri V.D. Gunale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Chandrashekhar in Writ Petition No.503/2009. Date wise reference to various stages and developments will therefore, be made little latter in the body of this judgment.
5. The other contention of Shri Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel is, land of petitioner Abhijit, which forms part of Survey No.24 of village Kanheri came to be included within the limits of Latur Municipal Corporation in the year 1988, when its boundaries were extended as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 on 16.08.1988. It is stated that said Survey no.24 belongs to the family of petitioner. It was admeasuring 32 Acres 16 Gunthas an
