Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, V.G.Joshi, JJ.
Prakash S/o. Ramchandra - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 916/2019 and Writ Petition No. 2093/2020
Decided On : 09-12-2021
C.R.Sharma, Advocate, T.H.Khan, Advocate, D.M.Kale, Advocate
The court emphasized the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice and grant an opportunity of hearing to contradict objections, ensuring a fair procedure and preventing miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Municipal Council - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sec. 127 - 2018 (4) Mh. L.J. 454 - The court held that the communication prejudicing the rights and interest of the petitioners should have adhered to natural justice by granting an opportunity of hearing to contradict the objection of the private respondents. The court set aside the communication and required the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to arrange a hearing of the private parties to verify the objection raised by the private respondents. Documents placed before him shall be given due consideration. Thereupon, the Chief Officer shall proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioners' prayer is granted, the period of 24 months referred to in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 127 of the 1966 Act shall be reckoned from the date the decision is given by the Chief Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition is directed against a communication issued by the Town Planning Authority and Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Khamgaon, in response to a purchase notice issued by the petitioners, referring to objections raised by private respondents and conveying that the purchase notice cannot be entertained due to a dispute regarding ownership and boundaries of the plot in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the communication prejudiced the rights and interest of the petitioners and should have adhered to natural justice by granting an opportunity of hearing to contradict the objection of the private respondents.
Issues: Dispute regarding ownership and boundaries of the plot, refusal to entertain the purchase notice, adherence to natural justice, and the rights and interest of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary, and no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand.
Final Decision: The court set aside the communication and required the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to arrange a hearing of the private parties to verify the objection raised by the private respondents. Documents placed before him shall be given due consideration, and an appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with the law. If the petitioners' prayer is granted, the period of 24 months referred to in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 127 of the 1966 Act shall be reckoned from the date the decision is given by the Chief Officer.
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA,C.J.
1. This writ petition is directed against a communication dated December 24, 2018 issued by the Town Planning Authority and Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Khamgaon (hereafter "the Chief Officer"). The said communication, issued in response to a purchase notice dated February 9, 2018 issued by the petitioners refers to objections raised by Shri Shashimohan Shyamsunder Tapadia and two others (hereafter "the private respondents") and conveys to them that since there is a dispute regarding ownership and boundaries of the plot in question, the purchase notice cannot be entertained. Copy of the objection of the private respondents was enclosed with the communication.
2. It is not in dispute that the revised Development Plan of Khamgaon city was published in the Official Gazette on September 30, 1993 and came into force from November 1, 1993 as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter "the MRTP Act"). In terms of such development plan, Survey No. 123, Khamgaon has been reserved for a children's park. The petitioners claim to be the owners of a piece and parcel of land measuring .35 R out of Survey No. 123 (hereafter "the said land"). Such ownership is claimed by reason of purchase of the said land from the erstwhile owners. It also their claim that the relevant entry in the 7/12 extract is proof of the petitioners' ownership in respect of the said land. Since the reservation was not given effect to despite lapse of more than 10 years, the petitioners by their notice dated February 9, 2018 called upon the Municipal Council to purchase the said land or to acquire the same. It was in pursuance of such a notice that the impugned communication came to be made.
3. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for the petitioner to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2018 (4) Mh. L.J. 454 : Abdul Gani N. Wadwan vs. State of Maharashtra and others to support the contention that sec. 127 of the MRTP Act does not require the sender of the notice to produce documents of title but documents showing title would be sufficient and that entries in the 7/12 extract would constitute sufficient material to come to the conclusion that such notice sender is the person interested in the land, even if he is not the owner thereof. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, it is contended by Mr. Sharma that the relevant entry in the 7/12 extract in respect of the said land would have been sufficient to demonstrate the interest of the petitioners therein and, if only the Chief Officer had granted an opportunity of hearing to them, the petitioners could have persuaded him to entertain the purchase notice upon overruling the objection of the private respondents.
4. Mr. Kale, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4/Municipal Council has, while resisting the writ petition, referred to the objection of the private respondents at page 84 of the writ petition as well as an order dated February 16, 2018 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3533/2017. According to him, such writ petition was at the instance of the private respondents and the Court had allowed the same declaring that reservation of land of the petitioners [private respondents herein] in Survey No. 123 ad-measuring 1 Hectare 80 R, Mouza Khamgaon, for primary school, garden and playground stands lapsed in view of the provisions of sec. 127(1) of the MRTP Act and also that the said petitioners would be free to develop such land as per law. The contention, therefore, is that the Municipal Council in refusing to entertain the notice served by the petitioners, did not commit any illegality for which interference of this Court would be warranted.
5. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It is recorded that the private respondents despite being served have not appeared before us today.
6. It is evident from the order dated February 16, 2018 passed in W
