Sourabh Dinesh Bora vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...

       wp4307.15                                                                      1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH




                                                                             
                          WRIT PETITION  NO.  4307  OF  2015

      Sourabh Dinesh Bora




                                                     
      aged 32 years, occupation - 
      Business, r/o c/o Harikisan 
      Vithaldasji Chandak,
      Padmavati Chowk, Arvi City,




                                                    
      Tq. Arvi, District - Wardha.                     ...   PETITIONER

                                   Versus




                                           
      1. The State of Maharashtra
         through the Secretary, Urban
                             
         Development Department,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                            
      2. The Director of Town Planning,
         State of Maharashtra, Central
         Building, Pune.

      3. Chief Officer, Municipal Council (M.C.)
      


         Nagar Parishad, Arvi, Tq. Arvi,
   



         District - Wardha.

      4. Town Planner, Town Planning Office,
         Wardha, Ambedkar Chowk, Sawangi





         Road, Near Stadium, Wardha.

      5. The Collector, Wardha, Tq. & District
         Wardha.                                       ...   RESPONDENTS





      Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Ms. M.S. Naik, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
      Shri M.D. Lakhey, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
                        .....

                                        CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                   P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

MARCH 07, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:08 ::: wp4307.15 2 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Mundhada, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Naik, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Shri Lakhey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner, a land owner of a land reserved in Development Plan, which has come into force from 01.12.2011, wanted to develop it. His land is reserved for playground vide Reservation No. 3; for garden and 12 mtrs DP road by Reservation No. 2.

3. Admittedly, he sought permission of the Collector under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to put it to any other use and it was rejected on 31.12.2013. Thereafter on 13.01.2014 he has issued purchase notice under Section 49 of the Act and it has been confirmed on 13.05.2014 by the State Government as required by Section 49(4) thereof.

4. The obligation was upon Respondent No. 3 -

Municipal Council to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the Act within one year. Section 49(7) prescribes that in default, the reservation lapses.

5. Here, the period of one year has expired on 12.05.2015.

6. Respondent No. 3 - Municipal Council, for want of funds, only could submit an application to the State Government.

Section 126(1)(c) of the Act, enables the Municipal Council to submit such an application but then the law on the point is laid down by the Division Benches of this Court. The judgment dated 10.01.2011 in Writ Petition No. 4393 of 2009 (M/s. Revati Construction and Developers vs. State of Maharashtra), holds that steps like mere filing of application with the State Government are not sufficient and steps should have been meaningful. No such steps including publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been taken in the matter.

7. The other Division Bench in the case of Subhash Ramrao Jadhav & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2012 (4) Mh. L.J. 236, again adopts the same line of reasoning.

8. Here, Shri Lakhey, learned counsel has attempted to demonstrate the poor financial condition of Municipal Council. He stated that the Municipal Council has time and again requested the State Government to release necessary funds for said purpose.

According to him, the amount in excess of Rs. Five crore is required and Respondent No. 3 is not in a position to shoulder that burden.

9. The petitioner cannot be blamed in the matter. He has completed the requisite statutory compliances and after expiry of one year of confirmation of purchase notice, the land stands de-

reserved.

10. Accordingly, we hold that the reservations mentioned supra on the land of the petitioner are extinguished and stand lapsed. The land has been made available to the petitioner for development in accordance with the provisions of Section 49(7) of the Act.

11. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

               JUDGE                                                        JUDGE

                                                   ******

      *GS.




    ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016                         ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:04:08 :::