The ownership of the area under reservation in the final development plan does not automatically vest in the planning authority, and the landowner is entitled to claim compensation for the area reserved for development plan road.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. Rule. With consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The respondents waive service.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of petitioner No.2 - company which is permitted to be deleted in view of the order passed on 4th December,2015 since the said company became non functional. The name of Petitioner No.2 has been struck of from the record. Petitioner No.1 is the Director of Petitioner No.2 liquidated company. However, there is no controversy as regards entitlement of Petitioner No.1 to the property in dispute i.e. area to the extent of 60 R out of Survey No.5, CTS N.904 situated at Shirdi, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, out of total area of 134 R owned by the petitioner. The area to the extent of 60 R portion which was of individual ownership of Petitioner No.1 was part of assets of liquidated company i.e. Petitioner No.2. The original owner of the suit property was one Parasharam Dagdu Gondkar. He tendered an application for conversion of user of property for non-agricultural purpose and by the order dated 6th April,1984, permission was accorded for change of user. In the month of October 1984, petitioner No.1 purchased the said property from the original owner and accordingly the name of petitioner No.1 was muted in 7 X 12 extract as well as property register record.

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have prepared the development plan for Respondent No.3 Nagar Panchayat, Shirdi wherein the development road having width of 15 meters has been proposed and said reservation for D.P. Road affects 60R area belonging to Petitioner. Though, the development plan was finalised in 2005, no steps for acquisition were taken and as such the petitioner proceeded to issue notice within contemplation of section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (for short "MRTP Act") on 31st May,2006. Since no steps for acquisition of area under reservation were initiated by the planning authority, the petitioner moved this Court with a request to issue directions to the respondents to release area from reservation and declare entitlement of the petitioner to develop and use the said land, as in case of the adjoining owner, with due approval from the planning authority.

5. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition are opposed by Respondent No.3 by presenting an affidavit in reply. It is contended by Planning Authority/Respondent No.3 in an affidavit presented on record that while presenting proposal for sanction of layout plan the petitioner has included the road having width of 6 metres in the plan which is as per building bye-laws. It was the responsibility of the petitioner while sanctioning the layout, to transfer layout road in favour of planning authority free of cost. It is pointed out that the petitioner has failed to transfer the layout road in favour of planning authority and as such he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. It is further stated that MSRDC has included said road in the first phase development programme and the cost of the said road is decided to be incurred by Saibaba Sansthan, Shirdi. It is contention of the planning authority that it has taken all necessary steps for developing the said property and as such provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act does not have applicability.

6. It is contended by the Planning Authority that area under reservation is needed for development plan road and both parties have agreed for negotiated settlement of compensation amount.

7. An affidavit in reply has also been presented by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Nashik Division, Nashik on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 wherein it has been stated that the development plan road proposed in the plan having width of 15 mtrs. is inclusive of layout plan road, approved and sanctioned, while considering the proposal of the petitioner for according permission to the layout plan of the larger area. It is contended that the petitioner is not