Bombay High Court
Madanlal Lalchand Jain vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 29 April, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 WP-2600.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2600 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 S.S. Dande, 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 : 29th APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned
counsel for parties finally, with consent.
2 WP-2600.14
2. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
final development plan of Nandurbar town is sanctioned on 19-03-
1979. The Survey Nos. 146/2+2 and 146/2/1+2 situated at
Nandurbar was reserved for garden by respondent No. 3. The learned
counsel submits that for more than 20 years no steps were taken, as
such the predecessor of petitioner on 24-01-2001 issued a purchase
notice U/Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 (for short "M. R. T. P. Act"). The learned counsel submits that no
steps were taken for acquisition though on 11-06-2001 the Municipal
Council, Nandurbar passed resolution resolving to acquire the land and
forward proposal. 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, 1894 (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 2010. The said
reservation is not changed. The learned counsel submits that, said
revised development plan would not affect the right of the
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).
3. Mr. Bagul, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-
Municipal Council submits that, subsequent to the issuance of
3 WP-2600.14
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.
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
counsel for respective parties.
5. 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.
6. The Apex Court in a case of Girnar Traders (3) V/s. 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.
7. 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
4 WP-2600.14
period mentioned in the purchase notice has already lapsed prior to
the revised development plan.
8. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause "A". No costs.
Sd/- ig Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
MTK
