WP5692-22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 5692 OF 2022

1.

Nandkumar s/o Tukaram Helwade

Age 58 years, Occu; Agril.

2.

Madhusudan s/o Tukaram Helwade,

Age 61 years, Occu: Agril.

3.

Manohar s/o Tukaram Helwade

Age 85 years, Occu: Agril.

... Petitioners

4.

Rushabh s/o Shamsundar Helwade,

Age 29 years, Occu: Agril.

5.

Krishnakant s/o Sanjay Helwade,

Age 29 years, Occu: Agril.

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

Through the Secretary

Urban Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2.

The Municipal Council, Sailu

Tq. Sailur District Parbhani

Through its Chief Officer.

... Respondents

Mr. Manish R. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners,

Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, for respondent No. 1- State

Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for respondent No.2

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL &

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE

: 14.12.2022

Page 1 of 6

WP5692-22

JUDGMENT ( Per Y. G. Khobragade, J.):

1.

We have heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.

Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the

sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3.

By the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are owners of land which is

reserved in the final development plan of Sailu Municipal Council, prays

for declaration regarding lapsing of reservation in view of section 127 of

the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ( hereinafter, '

the

MRTP Act'

)

4.

Mr. Manish Tripathi, the learned advocate for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners are owners of land bearing Gat No. 148

situated at Sailu Town, within the limits of Sailu Municipal Council. The

final development plan of respondent No.2- Municipal Council is

sanctioned under notification dated 18.06.2001 which came into force

with effect from 06.08.2001. Under the development plan, land of the

petitioners admeasuring 51 Are out of Gat No. 148 was reserved for Civil

Centre and Library as Site Nos. 47. The adjoining land Gat No. 148

developed as residential zone but the petitioners could not be able to

develop their land due to the said reservation. The petitioners initially

issued purchase notice under section 49 of the MRTP Act, however, the

Director of Town Planning M.S.Pune passed an order dated 16.03.2020

Page 2 of 6

WP5692-22

and has refused to act upon it on technical grounds. No steps have been

initiated by the respondent No.2- planning authority for acquisition of the

said property for more than 10 years. Therefore, the petitioners issued a

notice dated 24.04.2020 under section 127 of the MRTPAct along-with

necessary documents to the respondent No.2 Municipal council. In spite of

service of notice, no steps have been taken by the respondent- municipal

council for acquisition of the said land as contemplated under section 126

of the MRTP Act read with section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or

Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for more than two

years for acquisition of the property. Therefore, as per provisions of

Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation would lapse on expiry of

notice period.

5.

The learned AGP appearing for respondent-State has not

disputed averments made by the petitioners. However, it is submitted that

the respondent- Municipal council which is planning authority failed to

act upon the notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act due to financial

constraints.

6.

The learned advocate for the respondent No.2 Municipal Council

has not disputed the fact that the final development plan of respondent

No.2- Muni