Bombay High Court
Madanlal Lalchand Jain vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 April, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp2584.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2584 OF 2014
Madanlal S/o. Lalchand Jain,
Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o Vibhare Building, Station Road,
Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Assistant Director of Town
Planning and Valuation Department,
Nandurbar.
3. Nandurbar Municipal Council,
Nandurbar,
Through its Chief Officer. .. Respondents
Shri J. R. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri B. A. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri D. S. Bagul, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 11TH APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, final development plan of Nandurbar town is sanctioned on
2 wp2584.14
19.03.1979. The Survey No. 37 was reserved for open space, 12
Mtr. and 9 Mtr. wide D. P. Road by the respondent No. 3. The
learned counsel submits that for more than 20 years no steps
were taken, as such the petitioner on 21.01.2004 issued a
purchase notice U/Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act (for short "M. R. T. P. Act"). The same was
for the open space Site No. 9 as well as Site No. 24, play ground,
9 Mtr. and 12 Mtr. wide D. P. Road. Prior to 21.01.2004 the
petitioner's predecessor had also served notice U/Sec. 127 of the
M. R. T. P. Act on 24.08.1999. The notice dated 24.08.1999 was in
respect of Survey No. 37/2 + 37/3 and the notice dated 21.01.2004
was in respect of Survey No. 37/1-B, so also 37/1-A. The learned
counsel submits that no steps were taken for acquisition though
on 28.02.2000 the Municipal Council, Nandurbar passed
resolution resolving to acquire the land. Subsequently on
26.07.2004 the Municipal Council passed resolution not to
acquire land under D. P. Road. According to the learned counsel
though the time stipulated had expired, no steps were taken for
declaration U/Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "L.
A. Act"). The learned counsel submits that, subsequently in the
year 2007 the development plan is revised and the same has
come into force from 31.08.2009. The said reservation is revised
as Site No. 24 play ground and the other reservation is
not changed. The learned counsel submits that, said
revised development plan would not affect the right of the
3 wp2584.14
petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Godrej and Boyce
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra
and others reported in 2015 (2) All M. R. 921 (SC).
2. Mr. Bagul, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/
Municipal Council submits that, subsequent to the issuance of
purchase notice in the year 2007 revised development plan has
come into force and the said properties are under reservation
again. As such, notice issued would not have any effect. The
learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a
case of Prafulla C. Dave V/s. Municipal
Commissioner and others reported in 2014 AIR (SCW)
691.
3. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
counsel for respective parties.
4. The factual matrix as narrated above are not disputed by
any of the parties. The issuance of purchase notice and service
upon the respondent No. 3/Municipal Council is not disputed. It
is also not disputed that till date no declaration U/Sec. 6 of the L.
A. Act read with Section 127 of the M. R. T. P. Act is ever issued.
5. The Apex Court in a case of Girnar Traders (3) V/s.
4 wp2584.14
State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 3
SCC 1 has observed that steps of acquisition would mean
issuance of declaration U/Sec. 6 of the L. A. Act read with Section
126 of the M. R. T. P. Act.
6. In view of that, axiomatically after lapse of the stipulated
period of the purchase notice, the reservation stands lapsed as is
held by the Apex Court in a case of Godrej and Boyce
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra
and others referred to supra. The subsequent revised
development plan would not have any effect, as the statutory
period mentioned in the purchase notice has already lapsed prior
to the revised development plan.
7. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause "A". No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/April 16
