Sayyad Faiyaz Dadamiya And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3891 Bom

                                                1                         WP-6658.15




                                                                            
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                    
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 6658 OF 2015

     1.       Sayyad Faiyaz Dadamiya,
              Age: 58 years, Occu: Agril.




                                                   
     2.       Sayyad Halimabee Faiyaz
              Age 46 years, occu: Household,
              Both R/o Khajanagar, Dadamiya
              Manjil, Khadgaon Road, Latur,




                                           
              Tq. And Distl Latur.                   ...PETITIONERS

              versus         
     1.       The State of Maharashtra
              through its Secretary,
                            
              Urban Development Department,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

     2.       The District Collector,
              Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur,
      


     3.       The Town planner,
              Town Planning Office, Latur,
   



              Tq. And Dist. Latur.

     4.       The Municipal Corporation
              Latur Tq. And Dist. Latur,





              through its Commissioner.              ...RESPONDENTS

                                       .....
     Mr. Suhash P. Urgunde, Advocate for petitioners
     Mr. S.M. Ganachari, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3
     Mr. Ashin V. Hon, Advocate for respondent No. 4





                                       .....

                                   CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                           K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATED : 18 th JULY, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per: S.V. Gangapurwala, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2 WP-6658.15

2. Mr. Urgunde, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the land of the petitioner bearing survey No. 65 admeasuring 3 Acres,

27 Gunthas situated at village Khadgaon, within the municipal limits of

Municipal Corporation, Latur (for short "Corporation") is reserved as

site No. 221 for Shopping Centre and Sports Complex in the

development plan sanctioned on 02-01-2002. Learned counsel for

petitioners submits that for a period of ten years no steps have been

taken by respondents for development or acquisition of said land. As

such, on 04-01-2014, petitioners issued notice to the respondent No. 4

under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act,

1966 (for short "MRTP Act"). Said notice was served upon the

respondent No. 4. Petitioners along with said notice forwarded the

copies of 7/12 extracts, measurement map and copy of Namuna

Number No. 8 showing ownership of the petitioners. Said notice was

replied by respondents On 28-10-2014. According to learned counsel,

as no steps are taken within a period of one year from the date of

service of notice, reservation stands lapsed.

3. Mr. Hon, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 - Corporation,

submits that in the year 2013 the development rules have been

implemented and as per rule 36 of the said rules, if the petitioner is

ready to hand over the some portion of the land under reservation then

for the remaining portion of land respondent No. 4 - Corporation can

permit the petitioners to develop the property and the petitioners were

asked to submit the proposal. According to learned counsel, proper

documents are not annexed with the notice as is required.

3 WP-6658.15

4. We have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader.

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned

counsel for respective parties. Survey No. 65 situated at village

Khadgaon is larger area. The dates aforesaid stated are not disputed.

Sanction of development plan on 02-01-2002 and it being implemented

from 08-02-2002 is also not disputed. The land of the petitioners is

under reservation in the said development plan for Shopping Centre

and Sports Complex is also not disputed. Receipt of notice under

section 127 of the MRTP is not disputed. It would be seen that notice

under section 127 of MRTP Act is accompanied with photo copies of

7/12 extracts, measurement map and Numuna No. 8A. The same

appears in the notice itself. Notice is received by the respondent No. 4

- Corporation on the very same day. As per section 127 of the MRTP

Act as prevailing then, if after service of notice for a period of one year

no steps are taken for acquisition then acquisition stands lapsed.

Amendment to section 127 of the MRTP Act is made increasing period

of notice in December 2014. By virtue of it, notice period is increased

to two years. Even if said amendment is considered, two years have

already lapsed, as yet no notification for acquisition is made in the

sense notification under section 126 of the MRTP Act and the provisions

of Land Acquisition Act has not been issued till date.

6. In view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Girnar

Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2011(3) SCC 1,

acquisition stands lapsed.

4 WP-6658.15

7. Considering the above, writ petition succeeds. Reservation in

respect of the land of petitioners bearing survey No. 65 admeasuring 3

Acres, 27 Gunthas situated at village Khadgaon, Taluqa and District

Latur as site no. 221 stands lapsed.

8. Parties shall take consequential steps pursuant thereto.

9. Writ petition as such stands allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is

made absolute accordingly. No costs.

Sd/-

                              ig                             Sd/-
                            
           [ K. K. SONAWANE, J.]              [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

     MTK