Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 2100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bhay S. Oka, Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.
Salim Nizam Sanadi - Appellant
Vs.
Municipal Corporation, Sangli - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 283 Of 2014
Decided On : 05-06-2018
For the Petitioners:Rahimtulla Maheboob Momin, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate, M.M. Pabale, AGP.,
Headnote:
Se Maharashtra Region and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 4 r/w 11(3),22,38,31(6) and 127 - Reservation - Removal of reservation – Land - Petitioners by present Petition are seeking directions against the Respondents for removal of reservation on the land as having lapsed under Section 127 of Maharashtra Region and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Petitioners have also sought consequential relief including cancellation of Mutation Entry and setting aside of the order by which the Respondents have rejected Petitioners layout plan of property - Petitioners are owners and occupiers of said land - Revenue record of said land was bearing names of Petitioners who were recorded as owners - M.E. came to be effected whereby Petitioners said land came to be shown as reserved by Municipal Council - Entry was effected by the order issued by Chief Officer of Municipal Council - Respondent has filed Affidavits in Reply through one and one affirmed - Whether it has been initiated under Section 21 or revision initiated under Section 38, by virtue of sub-Section (6) of Section 31, plan as finally notified is a final development plan – Held, in present case, subsequent reservation of said land by sanctioned Revised Development Plan would be fresh starting point of period prescribed under Section 127 of said Act, particularly since the period had not expired from service of purchase notice - Therefore, in court view, since period prescribed under Section 127 of the said Act from service of purchase notice had not expired when Revised Development Plan was sanctioned reservation of said land has not lapsed - Therefore, by revised D.P, right accrued to petitioner by virtue of the notice is sought to be taken away - It is not permissible to do so in view of the law laid down by Apex Court and this Court - Therefore, reservation of the said lands in revised D.P for "Housing for Dishoused & E.W.S. Housing" will have no legal effect - It is clear from decision that the reservation of Development Plan was sanctioned after the expiry of the prescribed period from service of the purchase notice under Section 127 of the said Act and by which time, reservation of the land had already lapsed - In the present case, it is clear from the facts that reservation of the said land had not lapsed, when Revised Development Plan was sanctioned by issuance of a notification by Respondent – Court are of the considered view that reservation of said land has not lapsed under Section 127 of the said Act and that the impugned order is a valid order - Accordingly, Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Riyaz I. Chagla, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.
2. The Petitioners by the present Petition are seeking directions against the Respondents for removal of reservation on the land property S.No. 949/A/4/1 ad-measuring area H 0.022.50 R situated in the municipal limits of Sangli Miraj Kupwad City Municipal Corporation within the boundaries of the Miraj City (for short "the said land") as having lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Region and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the said Act"). The Petitioners have also sought consequential relief including cancellation of the Mutation Entry (M.E. No. 22082) and setting aside of the order dated 14 June 2013 by which the Respondents have rejected the Petitioners' layout plan of the property.
3. The Petitioners are the owners and occupiers of the said land. The Revenue record of the said land was bearing the names of the Petitioners who were recorded as the owners. M.E. No. 22082 dated 26 October 1995 came to be effected whereby the Petitioners' said land came to be shown as reserved by the Miraj Municipal Council (now Sangli Miraj Kupwada City Municipal Corporation). The entry was effected by the order dated 11 October 1995 issued by the Chief Officer of the Miraj Municipal Council. In the year 1998, the present Sangli Miraj Kupwada City Municipal Corporation was formed and Miraj Municipal Council became part of it.
4. It is the Petitioners' case that after 1995 till date Respondent No. 1 neither acquired the said land nor paid compensation to the Petitioners. A purchase notice was issued by the Petitioners on 27 March 2012 and served upon Respondent No. 1 under Section 127 of the said Act on the same date requesting Respondent No. 1 to acquire the said land within the statutory period. However, till date there has been no response to the purchase notice. The Petitioners by an application dated 20 March 2012 informed the Respondent No. 1 that the reservation was not necessary. The Petitioners state that the reservation of the said land has lapsed after expiry of the prescribed period from the service of the purchase notice under Section 127 of the said Act. The Petitioners had submitted a layout plan of the property for sanction from Respondent No. 1 on 9 May 2013. However, this was rejected by the letter addressed by Respondent No. 1 on 14 June 2013 stating there was a reservation of primary school and playground on the eastern side of the said land. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondents to notify the lapsing of reservation on the said land and the impugned order dated 14 June 2013 rejecting the laying plan of the Petitioners, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition.
5. The Respondent No. 1 has filed Affidavits in Reply through one Shri. Prakash Ganpatrao Bhukte dated 31 December 2014 and one Shri. Vivek Hari Pendse affirmed on 18 April 2018. The Affidavit dated 18 April 2018 states that a notification had been issued by Respondent No. 3 on 4 April 2012 sanctioning the Revised Development Plan and the said land was again reserved for public purpose for primary school and playground under Reservation Site 378. It is stated that since the Revised Development Plan was sanctioned on 4 April 2012, the purchase notice dated 27 March 2012 is of no effect.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has submitted that the reservation on the said land had been effected in the year 1995 and after 1995, Respondent No. 1 has taken no steps to acquire the said land and/or pay compensation to the Petitioners. He has submitted that the Petitioners have issued a legal and valid purchase notice dated 27 March 2012 to the Respondent No. 1 under Section 127 of the said Act. The Respondents have failed to acquire the said land within the prescribed period of 12 months from the service of the purchase notice. He has thus, submitted that the reservation on the said land has lapsed. He has submitted that Respondent
