1 J-WP-1192-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1192 OF 2017
1. Smt. Pushpabai Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 68 years, Occ. Household.
2. Sharad s/o Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist.
3. Pradeep s/o Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 60 years, Occ.
4. Kiran s/o Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 42 years, Occ.
5. Prashant s/o Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 40 years, Occ.
6. Girish s/o Maroti Tapadpallewar,
Aged about : 38 years, Occ.
Nos.1 to 6 are R/o Devi Ward Pusad,
Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal.
7. Sau. Manjusha w/o Ganesh Basatwar,
Aged about : 41 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Shivaji Nagar Pune. ..... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Chief Executive Officer,
Municipal Council Pusad,
Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:17 :::
2 J-WP-1192-17.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1193 OF 2017
Gajanan s/o Gurunath Dubbewar,
Aged 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Hatkeshwar Ward, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Municipal Council Pusad,
District Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1194 OF 2017
1. Smt. Pushpabai Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 68 years, Occ. Household.
2. Sharad s/o Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist.
3. Pradeep s/o Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 60 years, Occ.
4. Kiran s/o Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 42 years, Occ.
5. Prashant s/o Maroti Tagadpallewar,
Aged about : 40 years, Occ.
6. Girish s/o Maroti Tapadpallewar,
Aged about : 38 years, Occ.
Nos.1 to 6 are R/o Devi Ward Pusad,
Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal.
7. Sau. Manjusha w/o Ganesh Basatwar,
Aged about : 41 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Shivaji Nagar Pune. ..... PETITIONERS
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:17 :::
3 J-WP-1192-17.odt
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Chief Executive Officer,
Municipal Council Pusad,
Tah. Pusad, District Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N. S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Shri Pravin Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :
05/01/2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK , J.)
1. Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are decided by this common Judgment.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the reservation of the land of the petitioners, as ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:17 ::: 4 J-WP-1192-17.odt described in the prayer clauses in the writ petitions has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and the petitioners would be entitled to utilize the land as is permissible in the case of adjacent land.
4. The lands of the petitioners are situated in Pusad, Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. The lands of the petitioners were reserved as per the final development plan published for the city of Pusad on 26/07/1998 for different purposes. Since the respondent No.2 - Municipal Council did not take any steps for the acquisition of the land within 10 years from the publication of the final development plan on 26/07/1998, the petitioners served separate notices on the respondent No.2 - Municipal Council, dated 22/07/2015 under Section 127 of the Act for the acquisition of the land within the time prescribed in the said provision. It is the case of the petitioners that though the respondent No.2 has received the notices issued by the petitioners, it has not taken any steps for the acquisition of the land, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. It is stated that the necessary notification for the acquisition of the land is not issued by the respondent No.2.
5. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Municipal Council was duly served with the purchase notices dated 22/07/2015 but it has not taken any steps for the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:17 ::: 5 J-WP-1192-17.odt acquisition of land within one year from the date of service of the notices. It is submitted that though the notices were received by the respondent No.2 - Municipal Council on 23/07/2015, steps to acquire the land were not initiated on or before 23/07/2016. It is stated that since steps are not taken by the respondent No.2 for the acquisition of land, the reservation of the land of the petitioners stands lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act.
6. Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly admitted that due to financial crunch, the Municipal Council could not gather the funds for acquiring the land of the petitioners. It is however, stated that the relief sought by the petitioners may not be granted in the circumstances of the case, as the notices under Section 127 (1) of the Act were not issued by the petitioners themselves but by the counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have not joined the necessary parties to the writ petitions, inasmuch as the Collector of District Yavatmal and the Municipal administration are not joined as party respondents. It is submitted that in view of the non- joinder of necessary parties, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the declaration, as sought by the petitioners needs to be granted in the circumstances of the case. The purchase notices dated 22/07/2015 ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:17 ::: 6 J-WP-1192-17.odt were duly served on the Municipal Council on 23/07/2015. In one of the petitions bearing Writ Petition No.1193 of 2017, the Municipal Council has gone to the extent of admitting that the reservation of the land of the petitioner in that petition has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 has not taken any effective steps, whatsoever for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2 could not have taken any effective steps in view of the financial crunch. If the Municipal Council did not have the funds for the acquisition of the land, the steps for acquiring the land could not have been initiated. The steps have not being initiated by the respondent No.2 within one year from 23/07/2015. In view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 127 of the Act, the reservation of the lands of the petitioners is deemed to have elapsed in the circumstances of the case. The final development plan had come into force on 26/07/1998. Admittedly, no steps were taken by the respondent No.2 to acquire the land of the petitioners within 10 years from the date of the publication of the final development plan. The purchase notices dated 22/07/2015 were received by the respondent No.2 on 23/07/2015. However, no steps were taken by the respondent No.2 for the acquisition of land of the petitioners on or before 23/07/2016. In the circumstances of the case, the reservation of the land of the petitioners has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:17 ::: 7 J-WP-1192-17.odt Act. A declaration to that effect needs to be granted. While holding so, we are not inclined to uphold the submission made on behalf of respondent No.2 that the notice is not legal and valid as the same is not issued by the petitioners and the same is issued by the lawyers of the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners. The said submission is ill- founded and is recorded only to be rejected. There is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the petition should fail as the petitioners have not joined the Collector and the Municipal administration as party respondents. The joinder of the aforesaid two parties would not be necessary in a petition filed by the owner or a person interested in the land for a declaration that the reservation of his / her land has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. Since the Municipal Council is a necessary party and the same is joined as respondent, it cannot be said that necessary parties are not joined.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the lands of the petitioners as mentioned in the final development plan has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Act and the land would be available to the petitioners for the purpose of development, as is permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant final development plan. The State Government is directed to issue the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:17 ::: 8 J-WP-1192-17.odt notification in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 (2) of the Act, at the earliest.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:17 :::