Bombay High Court
Shrivallabh Dongardas Sikchi vs State Of Maha., Thr. Sect., Urban ... on 13 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/4 1306wp1059.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1059 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Shrivallabh Dongardas Sikchi, Aged about 70
years, Occupation : Business, R/o. In Front
of Sahkar Bhawan, Morshi Road, Amravati-
444601, Tq.and District Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- ig 1) State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2) Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra
State, Central Building, Pune.
3) Deputy Director of Town Planning, Near
Jamthe Hospital, Congress Nagar Road,
Amravati.
4) Assistant Director of Town Planning, Tatte
Building, Camp Amravati.
5) Commissioner, Amravati Municipal
Corporation, Amravati.
6) District Collector, Amravati, District :
Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. R. Ingole, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms N. P. Mehta, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6.
Mr. A. P. Kalmegh, counsel for the respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 13.06.2016
2/4 1306wp1059.16-Judgment
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 petitioner seeks a declaration that
the reservation of the land of the petitioner vide Reservation Nos.332,
333, 334 and 335 has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and that it
would be permissible for the petitioner to use the land for the purpose
of development or otherwise as permissible in the case of the adjacent
land under the final development plan.
3. The petitioner is the owner of Field Survey No.347,
admeasuring 2.77 HR in Mouza Badnera, Tahsil and District Amravati.
The land of the petitioner was reserved for public and semi public
purposes by the final development plan sanctioned in the year 1992.
Since no steps were taken by the respondents for the acquisition of the
land for the period of more than ten years, the petitioners served a
notice dated 29/03/2014 on the respondents for acquiring the land
within the stipulated time. It is the case of the petitioner that no
effective steps were taken by the respondent No.5 in the matter of
acquisition of the land of the petitioner for a period of one year from
the date of service of the notice and hence, there is a deemed lapsing of
reservation under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act.
3/4 1306wp1059.16-Judgment
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of
the final development plan published in the year 1992, the respondents
did not take any steps for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner for
High School, Public Garden and Dispensary and Maternity Home. It is
stated that Section 6 Notification is not issued by the respondents
within a period of one year from the date of service of the notice.
5. Shri A. P. Kalmegh, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.5, does not dispute that the notice, dated 29/03/2014 was served on
the respondent No.5. It is stated that with a view to acquire the land,
certain communications were exchanged between the respondent No.5
and the other respondents. It is stated that the land reserved by
Reservation Nos.334 and 335 was not required as certain old houses
were located on the same. It is further admitted that though certain
communications were exchanged by the respondent No.5, Section 6
Notification was not issued within a period of one year from the date of
service of the notice under Section 127 of the Act on the respondent
No.5.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the relief sought by the petitioner needs to be granted. In view of
the provisions of Section 127 of the Act of 1966, if no steps are
commenced for the acquisition of the land or the land is not acquired
within a period of one year from the date of service of the notice, the
reservation, allotment or designation of the land for the purpose for
which it is reserved shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the land
4/4 1306wp1059.16-Judgment
shall be deemed to have been released from reservation and it would be
permissible for the owner to use it for the purpose, as permissible for
the adjacent land, under the development plan. Since the notice under
Section 127 of the Act of 1966 was served on the respondent No.5 in
March, 2014, the amended provisions of Section 127 of the Act of 1966
as amended with effect from 29/08/2015, cannot come to the rescue of
the respondents in not taking any effective steps towards the acquisition
of the land within one year. Admittedly, since Section 6 Notification
was not issued within a period of one year from the date of service of
the notice, the petitioner would be entitled to the declaration, as
sought.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the
petitioner vide Reservation Nos.332, 333, 334 and 335 has lapsed in
view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act and the land would be
available to the petitioner for the purpose of development, as
permissible in the case of the adjacent land under the development
plan. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
