1 wp 6786.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6786 OF 2019

Shankar Nagar Co-operative

Housing Society Ltd., Vaijapur

Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad

through its Chairman

Shri Maganrao Dagadu Gaikwad

Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

R/o Panvi, Tq. Vaijapur,

Dist. Aurangabad

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

through Secretary

Urban Development Department

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

2.

The Director,

Town planning Maharashtra

State Pune.

3.

The Assistant Director of

Town Planning, Aurangabad.

4.

The Collector,

Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

5.

The Municipal Council,

Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad

Through its Chief Executive Officer.

.. Respondents

Shri Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Smt. Vaishali N. Patil Jadhav, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1

to 4.

Shri Narendra D. Sonawane, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

2 wp 6786.19

CORAM :

MANGESH S. PATIL AND

SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE :

20.09.2022.

JUDGMENT (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J. ) :-

.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent

of parties taken up for final hearing.

2.

By present petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that

the land bearing site No. 56, Sy. No. 280/6 adm. 1A 20G i. e. 5353

square meters situated at Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad stands de-

reserved / released from reservation.

3.

Undisputed facts are that the development plan was

notified on 18.02.1985, in which the writ property was reserved

for garden. Since steps were not taken for acquisition of reserved

land purchase notice was issued on 02.04.2008. Thereafter,

during the period of twenty four (24) months of issuance of

purchase notice, no steps have been taken for acquisition of the

property.

4.

The only objection raised on behalf of the respondent No. 5

– Municipal Council is that revised plan has been published on

21.12.2012, in which again the writ property has been reserved.

5.

In the light of the said defence of the Municipal Council,

the issue that arises for consideration is by publication of revised

plan, whether a reservation which has already lapsed by

3 wp 6786.19

operation of provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “M.R.T.P. Act”)

would revive ?

6.

The issue is no longer res-integra and is covered by the

judgment of this Court in the case of Kishor Siddheshwar

Wadotkar Vs. Director of Town Planning and others reported in

2007 (3) Mh. L. J. 399, in which it is held that the right accrued

to get the land released from reservation under Section 127 of

the M.R.T.P. Act cannot be taken away merely because land in

question is again shown to be reserved in the revised

development plan. This position is reiterated in another decision

of this Court in the case of Dinkar Narsinhrao Patil-Pawar and

others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition

No. 5025 of 2012 decided on 10.10.2012.

7.

Even in the judgment relied upon by Mr. Sonawane,

learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5 in the case

of Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and

others reported in 2015(11) SCC 90, it is held that, if the land

owner has taken action U/Sec. 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act at

anterior point of time to preparation of revised plan, such revised

plan will not have any effect on lapsing of reservation.

8.

Thus, it is now trite that mere publication of revised

development plan would not save lapsing of reservation U/Sec.

127 of the M.R.T.P. Act.

4 wp 6786.19

9.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The land in

question shall be deemed to be released from reservation. The

State Government is directed to publish notification under Sub

Section 2 of Section