Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PURSHOTAM VISHANDAS RAHEJA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 4 ORS. – Respondent
WP/2591/2007
ppn/kvm 1 wp-2591.07(j).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2591 OF 2007
Purshotam Vishandas Raheja
)
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
)
having his office at 202, Sukh Nagar,
)
N.S. Patkar Marg,
)
Mumbai – 400 007
)
..
Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
)
through Government Pleader,
)
High Court, O.S., Mumbai
)
2. Principal Secretary
)
Urban Development Department,
)
Government of Maharashtra
)
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
)
3. Under Secretary to Government
)
Urban Development Department,
)
Government of Maharashtra
)
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
)
3. Municipal Corporation of Greater
)
Mumbai, Planning Authority,
)
constituted under the provisions of the
)
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988
)
PRACHI
PRANESH
NANDIWADEKAR
Digitally signed
by PRACHI
PRANESH
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2022.12.09
16:09:21 +0530
ppn/kvm 2 wp-2591.07(j).doc
having its office at Mahpalika Building,
)
Mumbai - 400 001.
)
5. Municipal Commissioner for Gr.Mumbai )
having his office at Mahapalika Building, )
Mahapalika Marg,
)
Mumbai – 400 001.
)
.. Respondents
---
Mr.Cyrus Ardeshir a/w Mr.Atul Desai, Mr.Bhushan Deshmukh,
Mr.Chaitanya Bhandarkar, Mr.Pranav Monani i/by M/s. Kanga and Co.
for the petitioner.
Ms.P.H. Kantharia, Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3-
State.
Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Vandana Mahadik, Ms.Pooja
Yadav, Ms.Oorja Dhond i/by Mr.S.K. Sonawane for the respondents-
MCGM.
---
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th November 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 9th December 2022
Judgment :-(per R.D.Dhanuka, J.)
.
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondents to
forthwith withdraw the acquisition proceedings initiated by Notification
dated 22nd July 2004 in respect of the petitioner’s land and to forthwith
allow the petitioner to develop the petitioner’s land on the basis of lapse
of reservation.
ppn/kvm 3 wp-2591.07(j).doc
2.
The petitioner also prays for a declaration that on the basis
of the purchase notice issued by the petitioner on 12th May 2003, the
respondents have not acquired the land of the petitioner or taken steps
for its acquisition by issuing a declaration under Section 126 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the
MRTP Act”) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
within six months from the date of service of purchase notice and thus the
reservation of the writ land stands lapsed.
3.
The petitioner also prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing
and setting aside the Notification dated 22nd July 2004 issued by the
respondents under Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of
deciding this petition are as under :-
4.
The petitioner owns a plot of land bearing C.S. No.90 of
Dadar Naigaon Division, situated at Dadasaheb Phalke Road, Dadar,
Mumbai - 400 014. The petitioner had acquired the said plot of land
(for short “the writ property”) under a registered consent decree passed
by this Court on 9th February 1987 in Suit No.1593 of 1981. It is the
case of the petitioner that the entire development plan for ‘F’ South Ward
came into force with effect from 11th October 1992. The whole
development plan except the excluded portions was sanctioned on 19th
December 1991 and came into force w.e.f. 30th January 1992. The plan
for the excluded portion of the development plan was sanctioned on 3rd
June 1992 and came into force with effect f
