SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 2195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.
Abhay Anant Chougule - Appellants
Vs.
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9438 of 2011
Decided On : 30.10.2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.M. Gorwadkar i/b Nagesh Y. Chavan
For the Respondents: V.S. Gokhale, AGP and Tejpal Ingle

Headnote:Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 127 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 6 Reservation of land. - Non-issuance of Section 6 notification, renders reservation of land lapsed by operation of Section 127 of Act. - In the present case, admittedly a Section 6, Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was not issued and hence adverting to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions it would be required to be held that reservation of the land in question had lapsed by operation of Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia prays for a direction to the respondents that the reservation in respect of the petitioner's land bearing survey no.547 admeasuring 27.41 Ares situated at Ichalkaranji District Kolhapur (for short 'the land') kept under reservation as site no.8 for a RTO office in the sanctioned development plan for Ichalkaranji city, has lapsed under the provisions of section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner also challenges the communication dated 26.8.2011 of respondent no.5 rejecting the petitioner's application for a development permission on the ground that the said land is under reservation.

In short the facts are :

2. The petitioner is the owner of the land in question. Respondent no.5 the Ichalkaranji Municipal Council is the planning authority for Ichalkaranji city. A development plan for Ichalkaranji city was sanctioned on 5.3.1999 and was into force with effect from 7.5.1999. In this sanctioned development plan, the petitioner's land was kept under reservation at site no.8 for a RTO office. The appropriate authority qua the said reservation is respondent no.3 (R.T.O. Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur).

3. After the development plan was brought into force on 7.5.1999 neither the appropriate authority nor the planning authority had taken any steps to acquire the said land within a period of ten years for the purpose for which it was designated to be reserved.

4. The petitioner had initially issued a notice through his Advocate on 8.1.2007 to respondent nos.3 to 5 to acquire the said land for the purpose for which it was reserved or make it available to the petitioner for development. In pursuance thereto, the respondent no.3 by its letter dated 17.5.2007 had informed respondent no.4 to acquire the said land for establishment of Regional Transport Office.

5. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent no.3 by its letter dated 19.6.2010 had informed the respondent no. 5 -Ichalkaranji Municipal Council for making available suitable shops on lease in its commercial complex admeasuring about 1600 sq. feet near Thorat Chowk, Ichalkaranji city for establishment of the Regional Transport Office as permitted by the State Government. It is stated that the Municipal Council by a letter dated 17.9.2010 informed respondent no. 3 that a resolution No.173 dated 4.8.2010 has been passed approving allotment of 118 shops in the commercial complex as demanded for the establishment of the Regional Transport Office. The Petitioners state that these facts show that the authorities were no more interested to utilise the petitioner's land for the said designated purpose.

6. On this background, the petitioner issued a purchase notice dated 9.7.2010 under section 127 of the Act to the respondent no.3 -namely the acquiring body as also to Respondent no.5 the planning authority. The purchase notice was duly received by the respondent to. 3 and respondent no.5. By this purchase notice these respondents were intimated that the said land of the petitioner was kept under reservation in the development plan for a period of more than ten years and that the same were not acquired. It was stated that the petitioner intended to develop the said land, however, they were unable to do so due to the reservation. It was therefore, informed that the respondents acquire these lands within a statutory period of one year by making payment of compensation to the petitioner as per the market value failing which the reservation shall stand lapsed.

7. It is the petitioner's case that despite receipt of the purchase notice dated 9.7.2010 the respondents have not taken any steps for acquisition of the land within the statutory period of twelve months and hence the reservation of the said land had lapsed and the land had become free for development as per the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act. The petitioner






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top