Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
Sakharam Mahadev Jadhav (since deceased) his Legal Heirs Kailash Sakharam Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
W. P. No. 2661 of 2021
Decided On : 11-08-2021
Reservation Lapsation - Land Acquisition - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 49, 126, 127
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the court to issue a writ mandamus to declare the reservation for the petitioner's land as lapsed and to direct the issuance of building permission. The petitioner claimed that no effective steps were taken for a year from the confirmation of the Purchase Notice, leading to the lapse of reservations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appropriate authority had made an application to acquire the lands within one year from the confirmation of the Purchase Notice, as required under section 126(4) and 127 of the MRTP Act. Therefore, the reservation did not lapse, and the petitioner was required to follow the drill of section 127. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the reservations for the petitioner's land had lapsed due to the lack of effective steps taken by the appropriate authority within one year from the confirmation of the Purchase Notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted sections 49, 126, and 127 of the MRTP Act, emphasizing that if the appropriate authority makes the requisite application to acquire the land within one year from the confirmation of the Purchase Notice, the reservation does not lapse. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Chhabildas vs. State of Maharashtra and others, highlighting the necessity to follow the drill of section 127 in such cases.
Final Decision: The court held that the reservations did not lapse, and the petitioner was required to follow the drill of section 127. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ. –
1. The Petitioner – Sakharam Mahadev Jadhav is the owner of lands bearing Survey No. 69/1 and 69/2/1 situated at Village : Belavali, Taluka : Ambarnath, District : Thane, which is presently located within the jurisdiction of Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council, i.e. Respondent No. 4 (‘the said Lands’).
2. The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition inter-alia seeking the following reliefs :
(b) That during the pendency of present Writ Petition this Honourable Court be please to direct the Respondent No. 4 and 5 to issue the building permission to the Petitioner in respect of the Petitioners land bearing Survey No. 69/1 and 69/2/1, situated at village Belavali, Tal –Ambarnath, Dist – Thane.”
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Writ Petition are briefly set out hereunder :
3.1 As set out hereinabove, the Petitioner is the owner of the said Lands. The draft development plan of Respondent No. 4 – Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Counsel was sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra on 25th July, 2005 which came into force on and from 12th August, 2005.
3.2 In the said Development Plan, the land bearing Survey No. 69/2/1, admeasuring 1 Hector 75 Acre was shown as reserved vide Reservation No. 5 for “Public Offices and Staff Quarters” and the land bearing Survey No. 69/1 admeasuring 1 Hector 96 Acre was shown as reserved vide Reservation No. 6 for “Truck Terminal”.
3.3 On 28th August, 2012, the Petitioner was served a Purchase Notice under section 49(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘the MRTP Act’).
3.4 By an Order dated 26th February, 2013, Respondent No. 2 – Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra, rejected the said Purchase Notice dated 28th August, 2012.
3.5 Being aggrieved by the Rejection Order dated 26th February, 2013, passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8209 of 2013 and prayed for setting aside the said Rejection Order.
3.6 By an Order passed by this Court dated 19th September, 2017, the said Writ Petition No. 8209 of 2013 was disposed off. By the said Order the impugned Rejection Order dated 26th February, 2013 passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the Purchase Notice was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Respondent No. 2 for being decided afresh within a period of three months.
3.7 Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 – Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council submitted its Report to Respondent No. 2. After considering the said Report submitted by Respondent No. 4 and after hearing the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 by its Order dated 22nd February, 2018 confirmed the said Purchase Notice.
3.8 On 8th February, 2019, Respondent No. 4 made an application to the Collector, Thane, for acquisition of the said Lands covered by both the aforesaid reservations along with all the requisite documents.
3.9 The Petitioner by his Letter dated 26th February, 2019, made a representation to the Respondent No. 3 – District Collector, Thane and made a request for a copy of the notice of acquisition published in the Government Gazette under Government Declaration, if any.
3.10 On 11th April, 2019, the Sub-Divisional Officer informed the Petitioner that a proposal for acquisition of the lands in issue made by the Chief Officer of Respondent No. 4 – Municipal Council to the Collector, Thane, has been received and that the Collector Thane, has forwarded the same
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
