The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. consisting of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian opined that the State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose.
Facts
A final Development Plan was published u/s 31(6) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the Act) on 2.1.2002 which came into force on 18.2.2002 in respect of land including the land owned by the appellants for playground. The appellants purchased the land bearing Plot Nos. 1, 2, 9 & 10 on 21.11.2002. Though the Development Plan was finalized, but the same was never implemented nor any action was taken for acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After expiry of ten years, the appellants issued notice u/s 127 of the Act to purchase the reserved land within one year of the date of the notice. Such notice was acknowledged by the respondent Municipal Corporation to submit measuring plan showing reservation thereon including the area owned by the appellants.
Procedural History
The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the land of the appellants as released from the Development Plan of Latur Municipal Corporation, that reservation of site for playground be declared to have lapsed to the extent of the land owned by the appellants and that the land is available for the residential use of the appellants. In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation, it was inter alia submitted that the proposal was submitted to respondent No. 2 (the Collector, Latur) to take effective steps for acquiring the land reserved for playground. The proposal was returned by the Competent Authority, but no effective decision has been taken over the said proposal.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“Relying upon the judgment of this Court reported as Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & Ors. and some other judgments, it was held that the land reserved for public park cannot be permitted to be converted for other public purposes. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the liberty given by the High Court to acquire the land within an additional period of one year is not contemplated by the statute. This Court in Bangalore Medical Trust, a Public Interest Litigation, interfered with the decision of the Bangalore Development Authority to convert the land reserved for public parks for the purposes of construction of a hospital. It was in these circumstances that this Court intervened, indicting the land reserved for public parks to be used for other purposes.
The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain.”
Judgment
The direction to acquire the land within one year was set aside.
Case Name: Laxmikant & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1965 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Decided on: 23rd March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
