IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, M.M.Sathaye, JJ.
Atur Park-4 Co-operative Housing Society Limited, a Co-operative Society – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10400 OF 2019
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 20(1)(a)- Ceiling Act - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Constitution of the India,1950 - Article 226 - Seeking a writ of mandamus - Railway line - Exemption Order - Prohibiting Tress-passers - Whether in peculiar of this case Petitioner Society can be permitted to seek compensation and seek acquisition - Held, Judgment relied upon by Petitioner in matter of Plantation State of concerned reliance placed by Petitioner on said judgment is totally misplaced in as much as ratio of that judgment of Apex Court is related to invalidation of legislation on ground of delegation of essential legislative functions or on ground of conferring un-guided un-controlled and vague powers upon delegate without taking into account preamble of act as also other provisions of statute - In that case constitutional validity of Roerich and Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 and legal validity of Section 110 of Land Reforms Act, 1961 were consideration - This case are not even remotely close of that judgment and therefore this judgment also does not help Petition - Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 9. Mr. Pethe, learned Advocate waives service for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Mr. Desphande appears for Atur Park Co-op Housing Society Ltd. (Intervenor) who was permitted to attend final hearing and make submissions if necessary, under Order dated 23/02/2021 in Interim Application No. 353 of 2021. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The Petition is heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. This is a Petition filed ostensibly by the Society but through Power of Attorney holder Developer through its partner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondents (State Government and Pune Municipal Corporation Authorities) to acquire an area of 1891.85 sq mtrs, comprising of 15.70 mtrs wide strip of land on the south side of CTS No. 11/1/A adjoining to the railway track situated at 5, Koregaon Road, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. The Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to acquire the land under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (For short Fair Compensation Act). The Petitioner in alternative to prayer clause ‘A’ seeks an order restraining the Respondents from utilising or removing the barricades on the said strip of land. There is one more prayer made in the Petition which is a direction to Respondents to consider alignment of the D.P. road from boundary of the Railway line as per the Development plan.
PETITIONER’S CASE :
3. The case of the Petitioner is summarised as under. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Petitioner-Society is an owner of 8177 sq mtrs of land out of area admeasuring 28012 sq. mtrs. bearing CTS No. 11/1/A, which land was conveyed in the name of the society by the registered Conveyance Deed dated 28th July 2018. According to the Petitioner- Society, on the South side of the property, there is a strip of land which is 15.7 sq. mtrs wide, admeasuring 1891.85 sq. mtrs., adjoining railway track, which comprises of internal road having a width of 10.85 mtrs and the society garden having width of 4.85 mtrs which is shown in the sanctioned lay-out plan of the society. According to the Petitioner, the internal road is partially overlapped by Development Plan Road (“DP Road” for short) having width of 12 mtrs which is now shown in the Development Plan of the year 2017 abutting railway line.
4. On 15/10/1987, the Developer purchased Survey No. 11/1 from Sir Shapoorji Burjorji Broacha Charity Trust. From the year 1987 till filing of the Writ Petition, the entire CTS No. 11/1 was developed in 4 phases and multiple lay out plans have been sanctioned.
5. In the year 1987, when the first lay out plan was sanctioned, an area admeasuring 7111.12 sq. mtr, was required to be handed over to the Government as part of requirement under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (“Ceiling Act” or “ULC” for short). By an order dated 17/02/1990, an exemption order was passed under Section 20(1)(a) of the Ceiling Act. This order was passed after handing over another plot bearing survey no. 228/5 at Lohegaon admeasuring 18000 sq mtrs. By this exemption order, the area admeasuring 7111.12 sq. mtrs. was exempted.
6. In the year 2001, the promoter got the area measured from the department of Land Record because when the first lay out plan was sanctioned, the area was not properly shown. Under this measurement and demarcation plan, boundary of CTS No. 11/1/A is shown extended upto railway line.
7. The area which was incorrectly shown in the first lay out plan was finally corrected by Collector’s order dated 25th March 2004, under which the area is increased from 26703 sq. mtrs to 28012 sq. mtrs. and the boundary of CTS No. 11/1/A was extended upto railway line.
8. On 25/09/2006, the developer paid Rs. 18,86,50
Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
K.T. Plantation PVT. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The right to property under Article 300A mandates just compensation for land utilized by authorities, overriding regulations allowing nominal payment, ensuring constitutional protections are upheld.
The owner of land reserved for public purposes is entitled to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) if no compensation has been awarded and possession has not been taken by the planning authority, de....
The court emphasized that the petitioners' claims lacked merit as no land was released in favor of private builders, and the petitioners' grievances were based on disputed questions of facts.
The court emphasized that public interest in access to a completed public road outweighs private claims, disallowing obstruction based on width specifications set by plaintiffs.
The acquisition proceedings under Award No.12/83 were held not to lapse in terms of Sec. 24(2) of the RFCTLARR Act and they will continue.
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.