2024:BHC-NAG:5819-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 340/2023 PETITIONERS : Dhiraj Uttam Ashtankar & Anr.

Vs.

RESPONDENTS : The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Urban Development Department & others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 499/2024 PETITIONERS : Vitthal Haribhau Barde Vs.

RESPONDENTS : The State of Maharashtra, through it’s Secretary, Urban Development Department and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8433/2022 PETITIONERS : Shri Suryanarayan S/o Pandurangji Chakole &

others Vs.

RESPONDENTS: The State of Maharashtra through it’s Secretary, Urban Development Department & others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr.Rahul Tajne, counsel for the petitioners.

Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for the respondents-State.

Mr. Sunil Manohar, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Girish Kunte, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

Date of reserving the order : 07/05/2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 28/05/2024 O R D E R : (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. These petitions raise a challenge to the proceedings by the respondents, which have been commenced as per the Notification No. TPS-2418/Nag, Camp-9/CR-281/2018/UD-9 for the town planning scheme No.1 of Mouza : Pardi, Bharatwada, Punapur and Bhandewadi, Tah: & Dist: Nagpur, and so also seeks quashing of the notices dated 02/12/2022 and 09/12/2022 issued by the respondent no.2 for handing over of possession. A challenge is also raised to the R & R policy dated 03/02/2021 (Annexure-C) with a direction to award compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act of 2013’ for short). A further relief is sought to hold and declare that the provisions under Sections 98 to 100 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) are ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Insofar as the applicability of the Act of 2013 is concerned, Mr. Tajne, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Section 2(1)(e) of the Act of 2013, which provides that the provisions of the Act of 2013, would apply when the appropriate Government acquires land for its own use or for public use, including for the project of planned development or the improvement of village sites or any site in the urban areas or requirement of land for residential purposes for the weaker sections in rural and urban areas. He contends that since under Section 105-A(2) of the Act of 2013 (Maharashtra Amendment), there is an intention, to apply beneficial provisions, for the purpose of acquisition, the Act of 2013, would be attracted to the acquisition of land under the scheme and therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013. It is contended, that Act of 2013 is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore, the provisions thereto would stand automatically applicable to all acquisitions by the State, including acquisitions under the MRTP Act. He also relies upon the provisions of Section 125 of the MRTP Act to contend, that even for the purpose of calculating the compensation for compulsory acquisition of land under the town planning scheme, the provisions of the Act of 2013 have been made applicable and compensation would be payable in the manner as provided therein.

2.1. Insofar as R & R policy of the respondent no.2 is concerned, it is contended, that it has the effect of depriving the petitioners and persons similarly situated, from 40% of the total land held by them without any compensation on account of which the policy is bad in law. Insofar as provisions of Sections 98 to 100 of the MRTP Act is concerned, it is contended, that since they provide a different method of calculation of the compensation, different than t