IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, B.U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
Anil Dattatraya Girme – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8928 of 2016
Decided On : 26-02-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 37, 127, 38, 47 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6 - Possession of Land - Petitioner Nos - 1 to 4 were in continuous physical possession of lands as tenants - In due course of time compromise took place between petitioner Nos - 1 to 4 on one part and petitioners no - 5 to 6 on other part and in said compromise petitioner Nos - 5 and 6 relinquished their ownership rights to extent out of Survey out in favour of petitioner Nos - 1 to 4 and retained ownership of remaining portion of both lands with them - As such petitioner Nos - 1 to 6 are owners in possession of both lands to extent of their shares as shown in revenue record - In spite of service of said notice respondents did not initiate acquisition proceedings and issue notification within period of months from date of service of notice - Held, Therefore aforesaid ratio laid down by Division Bench of this Court does not apply to case at hand - As per scheme prescribed it is implicitly clear that once period of ten years is lapsed and Planning Authority has not taken steps to acquire land within a period of months from date of service of notice by virtue of deeming fiction reservation shall be deemed to have been lapsed and land shall be deemed to have been released from such reservation - Similarly right which is accrued to owner of land after lapsing of reservation cannot be taken away by Planning Authority by exercising power by again reserving land for public purpose in revised development plan issue is answered accordingly - If such application is made by petitioners respondent No - 2 Planning Authority is directed to decide same on its own merits according to law as early as possible and in any case not beyond period of three months from date of receipt of such application - Petition is accordingly partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.U. DEBADWAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the second revised development plan of respondent No. 2- Municipal Council, Kopargaon, sanctioned on 28.12.2012, to the extent of lands bearing Survey Nos. 103 and 104 belonging to them and for declaration that they are entitled to develop the said lands.
3. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell, are as under:
4. Petitioner nos. 1 to 4 were in continuous physical possession of lands as tenants. In due course of time, the compromise took place between petitioner nos. 1 to 4 on one part and petitioners no. 5 to 6 on other part and in the said compromise, petitioner nos. 5 and 6 relinquished their ownership rights to the extent of 5H. 18R. out of Survey No. 103 and 1H. 10R. out of Survey No. 104 in favour of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and retained ownership of remaining portion of both the lands with them. As such, petitioner nos. 1 to 6 are the owners in possession of both the lands to the extent of their shares as shown in revenue record.
5. Respondent No. 2 - Municipal Council, Kopargaon is the Planning Authority within the meaning of Section 2 Sub-section 19 r/w Section 2(15)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Petitioner No. 2 vide its resolution No. 13-A dated 13.11.1975 prepared revised Development Plan of Kopargaon City. The said development plan published in Official Gazette dated 11.12.1975. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 added some additional area in proposed Development Plan by way of additional Development Plan. On 29.10.1980, respondent No. 2 submitted both the proposed development plans i.e. revised provisional development plan and revised additional provisional development plan to respondent No. 1 for sanction and in turn respondent No. 1 sanctioned the same on 02.05.1988 and implemented with effect from 01.08.1988. In so sanctioned revised development plan, both the lands belonging to the petitioners shown to have been reserved for the purposes of Garden, Open Space, Kabrasthan Park and Public Latrine.
6. Though revised development plan was sanctioned in the year 1988, there was no acquisition of land of the petitioners for the purposes, for which they were reserved during the period of 10 years. Therefore, after completion of more than 10 years, petitioners issued notice u/s 127 of Act, calling upon the respondent no. 2-Municipal Council, Kopargaon, to acquire the lands belonging to them. In spite of service of the said notice, respondents did not initiate acquisition proceedings and issue notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within the period of six months from the date of service of the notice. Consequently, petitioners approached this court and filed writ petition bearing No. 6959 of 2008 against the respondents of present writ petition, for direction to them to release the lands. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 31.08.2009 and thereby their lands came to be released from the revised development plan of Kopargaon city sanctioned on 02.05.1988.
7. In spite of releasing the lands in pursuance of the Judgment and Order date
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.