Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 1166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
Shaikh Mohiyoddin Shaikh Sandu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3316 of 2024
Decided On : 24-06-2024
For the Appellant : Subodh P. Shah
For the Respondents: S.R. Yadav Lonikar, Jayant R. Shah
The court established that under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, a reservation lapses if no acquisition is initiated within two years of notice, provided that title documents are properly submitted.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 127 - Claim for declaration that reservation imposed under a development plan has lapsed - Petitioners claimed ownership over land subject to reservation; no acquisition initiated within two years of notice to the Municipal Council - Notice deemed effective as documents were provided, and Council failed to acquire the land - Petition allowed as the reservation was declared lapsed. (Paras 2, 7, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, joint owners of land Gat No. 18, sought to declare that reservations on their land imposed under a final development plan dated 25.07.2006 had lapsed due to non-acquisition. They issued a notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, claiming that all necessary documents were provided.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the notice served by the Petitioners was valid, and the Municipal Council had not taken any steps to acquire the land within the specified time frame, resulting in the lapsing of the imposed reservations.
Issues: The court addressed whether the notice served was effective given the lack of acquisition steps taken by the Municipal Council.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice was effective as it included the necessary document showing title, establishing that the Council's requirement for original documents did not negate the presumption of submission.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of petitioners regarding land reservation (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding effective notice compliance (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. interpretation of section 127 of the mrtp act (Para 7) |
| 4. court's view on notice and document submission (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion of the writ petition (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses A, B and C, as under:-
“A] The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby hold and declare that reservations (Site No. 43) imposed on land Gat No.18 under final development plan dated 25.07.2006 stood lapsed.
B] The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby hold and declare that the land Gat No. 18 totally admeasuring 1H-20R situated at Kukdel, Taluka - Shahada, District - Nandurbar, is free from reservations (Site No.43) imposed on land Gat No.18 under final development plan dated 25.07.2006.
C] The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra to issue a notification under Section 127 (2) of the MRTP Act, to the effect that the reservations (Site No.43) imposed on land Gat No.18 under final development plan dated 25.07.2006 stood lapsed.”
3. Dates and sequence of events in this matter are relevant and the same are as under:-
(a) The Petitioners, along with 11 other family members, claim to jointly own Gut No.18 admeasuring 1 Hector 20 R at Kukdel, Taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar. The said land is included within the municipal limits of Shahada Municipal Council.
(b) On 25.07.2006, the final development plan for Shahada city was sanctioned by the State Government and site No.43 was reserved for playground.
(c) Site No.43 comprises of lands from Gut No.17 (part), Gut No.18 (part) and Gut No.19 (part).
(d) On 16.12.2021, the Petitioners along with 11 joint owners, issued the purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the MRTP Act”). The Municipal Council has admittedly received the notice on 17.12.2021.
(e) On 26.07.2022, the Municipal Council addressed a letter to the Petitioners asking for the original copy of the extract and the measurement map.
(f) On 01.08.2022, the Petitioners supplied the certified true copies of the 7/12 extracts and the copy of the measurement map.
(g) 11 joint owners executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the present three Petitioners on 03.05.2023 and Mutation Entry Nos.9803 and 9156 were effected on 02.12.2023.
4. The controversy between the Petitioners and the Municipal Council falls in a narrow compass. The learned Advocate for the Municipal Council relies on the Affidavit in Reply dated 15.04.2024, filed through the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council and submits that the impugned notice is to be considered as being effective from 01.08.2022, since the Petitioners have complied with the demand of the Municipal Council for documents, vide letter dated 26.07.2022. As the documents were supplied on 01.08.2022, the two years period would expire on 31.07.2024 and this petition is prematurely filed.
5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the notice is issued on behalf of the these Petitioners by a Lawyer. A detailed narration (4 pages) is set out in the said notice and it is specifically mentioned that copy of the relevant 7/12 extract with regard to the land Survey No. 18 admeasuring 01 Hector 20 R, has been enclosed to the said notice. Notwithstanding that the Petitioners tendered the certified copy of 7/12 extract later on, the fact remains that the document to indicate the title of the Petitioners was annexed to the notice. He further submits that the Municipal Council is not disputing that the Petitioners are title holders and have an intere
