Syed Mudassar Ali Mushtaque Ali vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7393 Bom

                                                                                                               wp.4991.16

                                                                 1




                                                                                                                   
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                     
                                     BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                                ...

WRIT PETITION NO.4991/2016

Syed Mudassar Ali Mushtaque Ali Aged 23 years, occu: Business and Agriculturist R/o Peerbabanpura,

Near Indira Market, Achalpur Tq. Achalpur, Dist.Amravati. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

1) The State of Maharashtra

Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2) Municipal Council, Achalpur Through it's Chief officer, Achalpur Tq.Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.

3) Assistant Director of Town Planning Tatte Building, behind Labour Court Camp, Amravati-444602. ...RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 3

Mr. M.P. Lakhey, Advocate for Respondent no.2. ............................................................................................................................

                                                        CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                                       MRS . SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                              . 
                                                        DATED :       16th December,  2016

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

wp.4991.16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The 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 the

reservation of his land admeasuring 0.15 hectare, of Survey No.18/2 for

vegetable market, shopping centre, maternity home and garden, vide

Reservation Nos.63, 64 and 69 has lapsed, in view of the provisions of Section

127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the

petitioner is free to use the land for the purpose for which the adjoining land

could be used as per the revised final Development Plan.

3. The petitioner is the owner of land admeausring 0.15 hectare,

in Survey No.18/2 in Achalpur Taluqa. The land of the petitioner was

reserved for vegetable market, shopping centre, maternity home and garden

vide Reservation Nos. 63, 64 and 69 as per the revised final development plan,

dated 1.3.2003. Since nothing was done by the respondents in the matter of

acquisition of the land of the petitioner for ten years from the date of

publication of the revised final development plan, the predecessor-in-title of

the petitioner served a notice under section 127 (1) of the Act, on the

respondent no.2, on 27.6.2014. Since the respondents have not taken any

effective steps for the acquisition of the land and Section 6 notification is not

issued, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the reservation of the land

wp.4991.16

of the petitioner has lapsed, in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the

Act.

4. Shri Lakhey, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 fairly

states that Section 6 notification or a notification under the provisions of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition

(Rehabilitation and Re-settlement) Act, 2013 has not been issued, till date. It

is stated that due to the poor financial condition of the respondent no.2, no

effective steps could be taken within one year from the date of service of the

notice, as required by the provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Act.

5. It is apparent from the statements made by the learned counsel

for the respondent no.2 that the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration

in regard to the lapsing of reservation under the provisions of Section 127(1)

of the Act. The respondent no.2 has not taken any steps for the acquisition of

the land within ten years from the publication of the revised final

development plan on 1.3.2003 and has also not taken any effective steps for

the acquisition of the land within one year from the date of service of the

notice, on 27.6.2014. Admittedly, Section 6 notification is not issued till date.

The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has fairly admitted that the

respondent no.2 has not taken any effective steps due to the poor financial

condition of the respondent no.2.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. It

wp.4991.16

is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the petitioner

admeasuring 0.15 hectare, in Survey No. 18/2 in Mouza Khel Triyambak

Narayan for vegetable market, shopping centre, maternity home and garden,

vide Reservation No.63, 64 and 69 has lapsed and the petitioner is free to

develop the land in the manner permissible to the adjacent land, as per the

revised final development plan.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to

costs.

                            JUDGE                                 JUDGE

    sahare