2023:BHC-AUG:17983-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10044 OF 2018 Gopal Kashinath Lad (Kele)

Age: 66, Occu.: Agri. & Business, R/o. “Matoshri”, Survey No.74/1 B, Plot No.1, Behind Gajanan Maharaj Temple, Deopur, Dhule. ... PETITIONER V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Collector, Dhule, Taluka & District Dhule.

3. Assistant Director, Town Planning Department, Dhule Municipal Corporation, Dhule.

4. Dhule Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner, Dhule Municipal Corporation, Dhule, Taluka & District Dhule. ... RESPONDENTS ...

Mr. Subodh P. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.4 …

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 03.08.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 22.08.2023 JUDGMENT (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has put-forth prayer clause- A, B and C as under:

“A] The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby declare that the southern side plot in reservation site no. 35 in Survey No. 76/2-1 to 5 + Survey No. 76/1-4 situated at Dhule (particularly described in paragraph no. 3), is free from any encumbrance of reservation as reserved in final development plan of 1986 as site no. 35 (Children's Play Ground) and subsequently inclusion as site no. 47 (Children's Play Ground) in Final Development Plan of Dhule (II Revised) of 2015.

B] The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby direct the respondents to notify the same, by an order published in Official Gazette, in pursuant to section 127 (2) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning act, 1966.

C] The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, and thereby quash and set aside the order dated 29.07.2017 passed by respondent no. 4.”

3. Adv. Subodh Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that, Shenphadu Tukaram Bhai and others were the owners of land Survey No.76/2 - 1 to 5 + Survey No.76/1-4 admeasuring 3039 Sq. Mtrs., which is subject matter of the present petition. On 17/10/1986, the Final Development plan for Dhule was sanctioned and the said land was reserved vide Site No. 35 for Children’s playground. On 24/07/1999, the Original Owner Shenphadu Bhoi and his family members executed a Notorised Power of Attorney in favour of Rajendra Vasantrao Sonar. As per para 5 of the power of attorney, the original owner had empowered Shri Rajendra Vasantrao Sonar for taking appropriate action to free the land from reservation. Therefore, on the basis of authorisation by the original land owners, Shri Rajendra Vasantrao Sonar issued a purchase notice on 29/12/2000 claiming to be the owner of the petition land and referred to this notarized Power of Attorney. Thereafter, on 15/06/2001, the Respondent No. 4 Municipal Council Dhule submitted a proposal to the collector for acquisition of land pursuant to the purchase notice. Therefore, the development authority acted upon the purchase notice. However, the Respondent No. 4 has not taken step to acquire the land within the period of 24 months, therefore, the reservation lapses and the land is free from acquisition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further canvassed that, on 13/11/2002, the Respondent No. 4 Municipal council issued a communication in favour of the Power of attorney holder Shri Rajendra Sonar with reference to purchase notice dated 29/12/2000 informing that the proposal for acquisition of land is submitted on 15/06/2001. Thereafter, on 26/06/2003, it passed the Resolution No. 528 observing that the land owners