Bombay High Court
Antar Bharti Ashram Through Its ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 11 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp3861.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3861 OF 2015
Antar Bharti Ashram, through
its Director, Dabha, District
Nagpur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2) The Corporation of the City of
Nagpur, through its Commissioner,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. A.R. Taiwade, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent no.1.
Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 11, 2016
2 wp3861.15
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Rule, returnable early. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2) Service of a valid notice under Section 127 of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
is not in dispute. However, only defence raised by the
Planning Authority is that original owner Dr. S.P.
Gumastha has donated the land, which could have
been otherwise declared surplus to petitioner before
scheme under Section 20 of Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 was sanctioned.
3) Adv. Parchure for petitioner is relying upon
order of exemption dated 16/3/1981. He states that
exemption has been granted specifically for enabling
Dr. S.P. Gumastha to donate that land to petitioner
public trust and for construction of a hospital and
dispensary upon it by petitioner public trust.
3 wp3861.15
4) With the assistance of learned Counsel for the
parties, we have perused papers. We find that in
opening paragraph 1 itself of the order of exemption
dated 16/3/1981, purpose of granting exemption has
been stipulated. Purpose is to enable owner Dr. S.P.
Gumastha to donate that land to petitioner. The
petitioner has to use it for construction of hospital and
dispensary and for no other purpose.
5) In the development plan, that land was
earmarked for construction of market. The petitioner
public trust, therefore, could not raise hospital or
dispensary upon it. Hence, after waiting for requisite
period, petitioner has issued a valid notice under
Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966. In this situation, contention that
Dr. S.P. Gumastha has donated the surplus land to
petitioner Trust before 16/3/1981 is not relevant at all.
6) As service of valid notice, expiry of waiting
4 wp3861.15
period of one year and absence of any steps by
Planning Authority to acquire said land in the
meanwhile are all factors, which are not in dispute,
it is apparent that the reservation lapses and land
becomes available for purpose for which adjacent land
has been used. Accordingly, we partly allow writ
petition and make rule absolute in terms of its prayer
clause (i). No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
