H4

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.3 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013

(CC 9879/2013)

(From the judgement and order dated 24/04/2012 in WPC No.2204/2009 of The

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)

SAWANTWADI MUNICIPAL CORP. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

NASIR AHMED ISMAIL SHAIKH & ORS. Respondent(s)

With I.A.1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)

Date: 08/05/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI

For Petitioner(s) Mr.Amol Chitale, Adv.

Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr.Gaurav Agrawal, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

In the Development Plan of Sawantwadi City which came into

force on 1.4.1989, the land comprised in Survey No. 74 (Hissa No. 1G),

Survey No. 61 (Hissa No.33) and Survey No. 61 (Hissa No.31) was shown as

reserved for construction of Ring Road.

After 18 years, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 12.9.2007

under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

(for short, ’the Act’) and requested the petitioner to acquire the land and

pay compensation to him at the prevailing market rate with a stipulation

that if the land is not acquired within six months, then the reservation

would lapse. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner passed resolution

dated 29.2.2008 and decided to make recommendation for the acquisition of

land. Thereafter, the Chief Officer of the petitioner sent letter dated

7.3.2008 to Collector, Sindhudurg for the acquisition of land in question.

Letter dated 12.3.2008 was also sent to the respondents’ Advocate

mentioning therein that proposal for the acquisition of land has already

been submitted to the Collector.

After six and a half months, Additional Collector, Sindhudurg

made 10 queries from the Chief Officer of the petitioner and asked him to

submit complete proposal along with the documents.

The respondent waited for about 2 years from the date of

service of notice issued under Section 127 of the Act and then filed Writ

Petition No.2204/2009.

The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition

by relying upon order dated 31.3.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.3954/2006

- Harendra Bhikubhai Adhyaru and others v. State of Maharashtra and others

and connected matters.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

the record.

The scope of Sections 126 and 127 of the Act was recently

considered in Civil Appeal No.2733 of 2013 - Shrirampur Municipal Council,

Shrirampur v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and others decided on 1.4.2013.

After analysing the two provisions along with other provisions of the Act

and noticing the judgments of this Court in Municipal Corporation of

Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’ Association 1988 (Supp) SCC 55,

Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 555 and Girnar Traders

v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 3 SCC 1, the Court rejected the argument

that there was conflict between the judgments in Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’

Association and Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 555.

The Court then proceeded to observe:

"We are further of the view that the majority in Girnar Traders (II)

had rightly observed that steps towards the acquisition would really

commence when the State Government takes active steps for the

acquisition of the particular piece of land which