Bombay High Court
Bhaskar Keshawrao Tompe And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 20 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 2004wp935.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 935 OF 2016
PETITIONERS :- 1) Bhaskar Keshawrao Tompe, Age-50, Occu:
Business, R/o Ambapeth, Amravati, Tq. &
Dist. Amravati.
2) Vijay Keshawrao Tompe, Age-45, Occu:
Service, R/o Ambapeth, Amravati, Tq. &
ig Dist. Amravati.
3) Akash Rajesh Dhage, Age-28, Occu: Service,
R/o Chandur Bazar, Tq. Chandur Bazar, Dist.
Amravati.
4) Pankaj Prabhakarrao Pihulkar, Age-32, R/o
Chandur Bazar, Tq. Chandur Bazar, Dist.
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary,
Department of Urban Welfare, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2) Municipal Council Chandur Bazar, Dist.
Amravati, Through it's Chief Officer.
3) The Regional Director of Municipal
Administration And The Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati.
4) The Collector, Amravati.
5) Superintendent of Post Offices, Amravati
Division, Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:02:53 :::
2/4 2004wp935.16-Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.J.Mirza, counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs.Rashi Deshpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the
respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
Mr.M.I. Dhatrak, counsel for the respondent No.2.
Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, counsel for the respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20.04.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that
the reservation of the land of the petitioners, admeasuring 11 Are in
Survey No.76/3 of Mouza Chandur Bazar for the purpose of Post Office
has lapsed, as per the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the petitioners are entitled
to use the same, as is permissible to the adjoining land holders as per
the concerned development plan.
3. The petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey
No.76/3, to the extent of 11 Are that was reserved for the Post Office by
the final development plan, dated 01/03/2000. Since nothing was done
3/4 2004wp935.16-Judgment
in the matter by the respondents for a period of more than ten years for
the acquisition of the land, the petitioners served a notice on the
respondent Nos.2 and 5 under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 on
15/03/2013. Since no effective steps were taken by the concerned
respondents in the matter of acquisition of the land of the petitioners
within a period of twenty four months as per the amended provisions of
Section 127, the petitioners have filed the instant petition, seeking the
aforesaid declaration.
4. Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.5-appropriate authority, admitted that the purchase
notice was served on the respondent No.5 in March, 2013. It is stated
that after the receipt of the purchase notice, the respondent No.4-
Collector had asked the respondent No.5 to take steps in respect of the
acquisition of the land but the respondent No.5 had failed to tender the
form in triplicate and also deposit the amount that was required to be
deposited towards the acquisition. It is fairly admitted that the Section
6 Notification is not within a period of twenty four months from the
date of service of the purchase notice on the respondent No.5.
5. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties
that the petitioners would be entitled to the relief claimed. Admittedly,
the petitioners had served the purchase notice on the respondent No.5
4/4 2004wp935.16-Judgment
on 15/03/2015. Despite the service of the notice on the respondent
No.5, as required by the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, the
respondent No.5 did not take any effective steps for the acquisition of
the land of the petitioners. Since admittedly, the Section 6 Notification
is not issued, it would be necessary to hold that the respondent No.5
had not taken any effective steps for the acquisition of the land. It
would be necessary to hold in the circumstances of the case that the
reservation of the land of the petitioners, to the extent of 11 Are, for
Post Office, by the final development plan, dated 01/03/2000 has
lapsed and the petitioners would be free to develop the land, as is
permissible to the adjacent land holders, under the concerned
development plan.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the
petitioners, admeasuring 11 Are in Survey No.76/3 of Mouza Chandur
Bazar for Post Office has lapsed, as per the provisions of Section 127 of
the Act. The petitioners would be free to develop the land as permissible
in the case of the adjacent land under the relevant plan. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
