Point of Law: Land Acquisition and Requisition - Powers of Planning Authority to acquire land compulsorily - Transferable Development Rights - Planning Authority has taken steps to commence acquisition of reserved land and acquired reserved land in time from service of purchase notice by offering her compensation of TDR, and petitioner has no right to refuse compensation of TDR offered by respondents.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Mehare, J.

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2) The petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the declaration of de-reservation and release of her land reserved in the Development Plan under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 ( the 1966 Act for short).

3) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the land survey no. 118/4/1 of Mauje Nimkhedi shivar, Tq and District Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'reserved land'), at the time of its reservation, was owned by Shirsale family. The petitioner purchased the reserved land by sale deeds dated 19.05.2011 and 29.04.2014 and acquired exclusive ownership. The reserved land was reserved for Town Hall and Library in the final Development Plan of the excluded part (EP) of Jalgaon (Additional Area) published on 01.10.2014. Since the respondents did not acquire the reserved land under section 126 of the 1966 Act within ten years of its reservation, the petitioner served a notice dated 29.09.2017 under section 127 of the 1966 Act on respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3 received the said notice on 11.10.2017. Respondent no. 3, by reply dated 16.12.2017 and 12.03.2019 offered the compensation of Transferable Development Rights (TDR for short) to the petitioner. However, the petitioner declined the TDR by her letter dated 16.03.2019 and claimed monetary compensation by acquiring the land following the procedure as prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent corporation passed a resolution no.79 in its General Meeting dated 21.02.2019 that, considering the financial condition of the Corporation, instead of monetary compensation, TDR should be offered to the petitioner. In its letter dated 16.12.2017, the Planning Authority had objected that since the final 7/12 extracts are not attached, it is impossible to confirm the purchase notice.

4) In addition to the above-admitted facts, respondents nos.2 and 3, by their affidavit in reply, have taken the stand that the petitioner was informed that if she is willing to receive compensation of TDR, she should inform them within seven days of receiving their letter. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jalgaon, vide letter dated 05.04.2018, requested the District Collector that the publication of the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act within twenty-four months is necessary; hence, kindly publish a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, vide letter dated 29.07.2019, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records Jalgaon to conduct the joint measurement to acquire the reserved land. It is the further contention of respondents nos. 2 and 3 that the acts and conduct of the petitioner to refuse compensation in the form of TDR itself shows that the petitioner either does not want acquisition or compensation. TDR has its value, and it is nothing but compensation. She may use it for herself or sell it to anybody. Therefore, the attitude of the petitioner is evident that she is obstructing the functioning of the Corporation. The Collector submitted the proposal for the acquisition of the reserved land in time. However, due to Covid-19, the priority was given to the extreme urgent works only. In such a situation, it cannot be said that no steps to commence the acquisition of the reserved land have been taken. Therefore the petition is devoid of merit.

5) We have heard the respective learned counsels for the respective parties at length.

6) The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner, the owner of the reserved land, has served a valid purchase notice on the respondents. However, the respondent failed to comply with statutory provisions of the Act 1966. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of Balaji Associates through its partners V State of Maharashtra, (2019) 19 SCC 1 and H