Bombay High Court
Priya Mayur Toshniwal Through His ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 26 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp6502.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6502 OF 2015
Priya Mayur Toshniwal,
age 28 years, occupation :
service, r/o Ambapeth, Amravati,
through his Power of Attorney
Pravin Balkrishnaji Maloo,
age 45 years, occupation : business,
r/o Ambapeth, Amravati. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The State of Maharashtra, through
the Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Municipal Corporation of City of
Amravati, through its Commissioner,
Amravati Municipal Corporation,
Rajkamal Chowk, Amravati.
3) Assistant Director of Town Planning,
Municipal Corporation, Amravati.
4) The Collector, Amravati, through
Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati,
acting as Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Tahsil Office, Amravati,
Taluq and District Amravati. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos.1
and 4.
Shri S. Saoji, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.
----------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 26, 2016
2 wp6502.15
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
, J.) :
Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ
petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties.
2) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that
reservation of her land vide Reservation No.518 for a Shopping Complex
in respect of Survey No.218, admeasuring 0.40 R of Mouza Rahatgaon,
Taluq and District Amravati has lapsed in view of the provisions of
Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
and she is free to develop such land in the manner permissible in the case
of adjacent land under the relevant Development Plan.
3) The petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Survey
No. 218 to the extent of 0.40 R of Mouza Rahatgaon, Taluq and District
Amravati. The land of the petitioner was reserved for a Shopping
Complex vide Reservation No. 518 by the revised Development Plan dated
12/9/2003. Since nothing was done by the respondents in the matter of
acquisition of land for more than 10 years, the petitioner served a notice
dated 12/9/2014 on the respondent nos.2 and 3. That was received by
the respondent nos.2 and 3 on the same date. It is the case of the
petitioner that despite expiry of one year from the date of receipt of the
3 wp6502.15
notice, respondent nos.2 and 3 have not taken any effective steps for the
acquisition of the land.
4) Shri Saoji, learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3,
has tendered an affidavit-in-reply of the respondent nos.2 and 3 in the
Court today. The same is accepted on record.
5) It is stated on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 that after
notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 was served on them, they informed the petitioner that if she
files an appropriate application, they would try to pay the compensation
by way of Transferable Development Rights. It is, however, fairly stated
that no effective steps could be taken by the respondent nos.2 and 3 for
the acquisition of land of the petitioner due to shortage of funds. It is
submitted that the respondent nos.2 and 3 disclosed their intention to
acquire the land to the State Government, but the effective steps could not
be taken due to lack of funds. It is admitted that no notification under
Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is issued till date.
6) On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that a
case is made out by the petitioner for grant of declaration as prayed. In
view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966, it was necessary for the respondent nos.2 and 3
4 wp6502.15
to issue notification under Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. Admittedly, no notification under Section 19 of the said Act of
2013 is issued in respect of the land of the petitioner till date. In view of
the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966, reservation of the land of the petitioner for the
Shopping Complex is deemed to have lapsed and the petitioner would be
free to develop the land in the manner permissible in the case of adjacent
land under the relevant Development Plan.
7) For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition is
allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the
petitioner vide Reservation No. 518 has lapsed under Section 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the petitioner is
free to develop the land owned by her in the manner permissible in the
case of adjacent land under the relevant Development Plan.
8) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
5 wp6502.15
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy
of original signed order.
Uploaded by : Uploaded on :
Kamal H. Jeswani 29/08/2016
Private Secretary
