1 judgment-wp2574-21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2574 OF 2021

Saurabh R. Shah

Age : 29 Years, Occu.: Business,

Residing at : 905/906, Yashwant

Heights Apt., above Union Bank,

Bhaji Galli, Opp. Vijay Vihar High School,

Virar (W), Dist. : Palghar – 401 303.

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The Urban Development and Town

Planning Department, Through the

Principal Secretary Having Of昀椀ce at

Mantralaya Mumbai – 400 032.

2. Vasai Virar Municipal Corportion

Having its of昀椀ce at Virar (East),

Tal. : Vasai, Dist. : Palghar.

3. Town Planning Department,

Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation,

Virar (East), Tal. : Vasai,

Dist. : Palghr.

… Respondents

-------

Mr. S.M.Gorwadkar, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.Sainand V. Chaugule for the

Petitioner.

Mrs.Swati Sagvekar for the Respondents No. 2 and 3.

Mr.Y.D.Patil, AGP for the Respondent State.

-------

CORAM : A. A. SAYED AND

ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 2ND MARCH 2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 9TH MARCH 2022

SRS

1 of 20

2 judgment-wp2574-21.odt

JUDGMENT : (Per Abhay Ahuja, J.)

1.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of Counsel

for the parties heard 昀椀nally.

2.

By this Petition 昀椀led under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking a declaration from this

Court that the reservation made on the land owned by the

Petitioner on Survey No.198, Hissa No.3/2, situate at village –

Sandor, Bhabola Road, Taluka : Vasai, District : Palghar (the “said

land”) within the limits of Vasai Virar Sub-Region, reserved for

water bodies/20 meter water channel and 20 & 30 meters D.P.Road

has lapsed and therefore, the said land be released from the

reservation in accordance with the provisions under Section 127 of

the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (the “MRTP

Act”).

3.

It is the case of Petitioner that the development

plan for Vasai Virar was sanctioned on 9^th February 2007. The

said land along with structure standing thereon was

purchased by Petitioner vide a deed of conveyance dated 6^th

SRS

2 of 20

3 judgment-wp2574-21.odt

September 2014. After the issuance of the Noti昀椀cation dated 9^th

February 2007, the Respondents No.1 to 3 had not taken any steps

under the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act for

acquisition of the said land. The Petitioner therefore vide purchase

notice dated 18^th April 2017 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act,

requested the Respondents No.2 and 3 to acquire the said land by

paying appropriate compensation within a period of 24 months

failing which, the said reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed.

The said period of twenty four months from the date of purchase

notice ended on 17^th April 2019. It is an admitted position that no

proceedings have been taken by the Respondents for acquisition of

the said land.

4.

It is submitted on behalf of Petitioner that however,

pursuant to notices dated 24^th December 2019, 3^rd March 2020 and

4^th May 2020, by Respondent No.2 alleging that there was

reservation of 20 meter water channel on the said land, on 5^th June

2020, the Respondent No.1 demolished the compound wall of

Petitioner and started digging work for the proposed water channel

without acquiring the said land. It is submitted that after the

digging work for the water channel was completed, the Respondent

SRS

3 of 20

4 judgment-wp2574-21.odt

No.1 left the site without constructing the compound wall and or

covering the water channel with RCC cover / slab. It is apprehended

that if the digging work still continues even without acquiring the

said land, the Respondents will dispossess Petitioner from his own

property without even acquiring the said land and without paying

the compensation. It is, under