Advocates:
['G K MUNDHADA', 'PRADNYA B JINDEPRADNYA B JINDE', 'PRADNYA B JINDE', 'COPY SERVED TO GP/R', '', 'JEMINI BRIJMOHAN KASAT', 'FOR/R', 'FOR/R']

1

wp-449-2020 (J).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Writ Petition (WP) No. 449 of 2020

Sarlabai Narayandasji Sikchi,

Age: 65 yrs, Occupation: Household,

R/o Balaji Plot, Amravati-444 602.

.... Petitioner

// VERSUS //

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

through the Secretary Urban

Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Municipal Corporation of City of

Amravati, through its Commissioner,

Amravati Municipal Corporation,

Rajkamal Chowk, Amravati.

3.

Assistant Director of Town Planning,

Municipal Corporation, Amravati off:

Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal

Chowk, Amravati.

... Respondents

Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for Petitioner

Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for Respondent No.1

Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND

ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 18 FEBRUARY 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

nd.thawre

2

wp-449-2020 (J).odt

By the Present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is praying

for declaration that the land owned by her, stands lapsed from the

reservation under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, 1966 (herein after in short ‘the MRTP Act”).

2.

The brief facts which are necessary to decide the controversy

involved in the present Petition, are as under:

The Petitioner is the owner of a land bearing Survey No.23,

area admeasuring 1 Hectare 28 R, village Navsari, Taluka and District

Amravati, which is situated in the limit of the Municipal Corporation of

city of Amravati. The aforesaid land was shown to be reserved for

‘Garden / Park’ in the First Revised Development Plan of the City of

Amravati, which came into force with effect from 25 February 1993.

3.

However, no steps for acquisition have been taken for more

than 10 years and therefore, the Petitioner served a purchase notice under

Section 127 of the MRTP Act, on 24 May 2007 calling upon the

Respondent No. 2, Planning authority to acquire or to take steps to

acquire the land in question within a statutory period from the date of

service of the purchase notice.

4.

Though the purchase notice was served upon the Respondent

No. 2, no steps have been taken by the Respondent Planning Authority

to acquire the land in question within a statutory period. However, on the

other hand, in the Second Revised Draft Development Plan the said land

has again been shown as reserved for ‘Garden’, vide Reservation No.6.

Hence, this Petition.

nd.thawre

3

wp-449-2020 (J).odt

5.

We have heard the learned Counsel for respective parties.

6.

Shri G.K. Mundhada, learned Counsel for the Petitioner

points out that despite the purchase notice under Section 127 of the

MRTP Act, was served upon the Respondent No.2 – Planning Authority,

on 24 May 2007, no steps have been taken by the Respondent No. 2 to

acquire the land in question within statutory period and as such, in view

of the well settled law, the Reservation is deemed to have lapsed.

7.

He further argues that because the Respondent No. 2 failed to

acquire the land of the Petitioner or to take steps for the said purpose

within a statutory period, the right is crystallized in favour of the

petitioner under section 127 of the MRTP Act and therefore, the said

land cannot be again reserved for the same purpose in the Revised

Development Plan. For this Purpose, he has placed reliance on a decision

of Division Bench of this Court, in Ashok Shriram Kulkarni Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others¹.

8.

Per contra, Shri J.B. Kasat, the learned Counsel for the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposes the Petition and requests for dismissal

of the Petition.

9.

To consider the rival contentions of the parties, we have

perused the record, thereupon it is revealed that the Respondent Nos.2

and 3 are not disputing the following facts:

9.1.

The Petitioner is the owner of the land in question

1

2017(3) Bombay C.R. 777

nd.thawre

4

wp-449-2020 (J).odt

9.2.

In the First Revi