904-ca-8226-2019.odt

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8226 OF 2019

IN WP/6057/2016

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAHURI THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER

AHMEDNAGAR

VERSUS

KUSUM DASHRATH UNDE AND ANOTHER

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Naiknavare Ramesh V.

AGP for Respondents : Mrs. V.S. Choudhari

...

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &

M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATED : 19^th MARCH, 2021

PER COURT:-

.

Heard Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, learned counsel for the

applicant and Mrs. Choudhari, learned AGP for respondent no.2.

2.

The applicant is the Municipal Council, Rahuri, which was

respondent no.2 in the related writ petition being Writ Petition No.6057 of

2016.

3.

This application has been fled for review of judgment and

order dated 21.03.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6057 of

2016 fled by Sau. Kusum w/o Dashrath Unde. The related writ petition

was fled by the original petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents

for issuance of declaration that the reservation prescribed for public

amenities in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner in the

fnal development plan prepared for Rahuri Municipal Council should be

deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 127 of the Maharashtra

Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.

904-ca-8226-2019.odt

(2)

4.

The writ petition was contested by the applicant which was

respondent no.2 by fling reply afdavit. After hearing the parties and

relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girnar

Traders Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, this Court

allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 21.03.2017 by

making rule absolute. Relevant portion of the judgment and order dated

21.03.2017 reads as under:

“8) Since the notifcation within contemplation of Section 19 of

the Act of 2013 has not been issued, the contention of the

local authority that the steps have been taken for acquisition of

the properties belonging to the petitioners, is not acceptable.

On account of failure of the local authority to initiate the

proceedings for land acquisition within a period of 24 months

from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 127 of the

MRTP Act, the reservation, allotment or designation in respect

of the properties belonging to the petitioners, prescribing the

fnal development plan prepared for the local authority, shall

stand lapsed. As a result of lapsing of reservation, allotment or

designation, the State Government is directed to notify the

same by an order to be published in the ofcial gazette, as

expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months

from today.”

5.

Review has been sought for on the ground that the original

petitioner was served with notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra

Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, which provides for a two year period

for giving efect to land acquisition proceedings. Before completion of that

period, the writ petition was fled. Further it is urged that dereserving the

subject land from the development plan would afect the development of

the municipal council. Therefore, it is in the public interest that the

applicant should be permitted to proceed with the development plan as

904-ca-8226-2019.odt

(3)

originally envisaged.

6.

We are afraid we cannot accept the prayer of the applicant

for review of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2017 on the grounds set

forth. What the review petitioner basically seeks is rehearing of the

concluded writ petition on merit, which is not the purport and ambit of

review jurisdiction. We do not fnd any error apparent on the face of the

record or any of the conditions set forth in order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil

Procedure Code, 1908 to review the judgment and order dated

21.03.2017.

7.

Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain the civil

application. Accordingly, civil application is dismiss