Bombay High Court
Rupesh Dhirajsingh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Maha., Through The ... on 20 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment
wp5192.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5192 OF 2015
Rupesh Dhirajsingh Raghuwanshi,
Age 38, years, Occupation Service,
R/o C/o "Mahakali Restaurant" Sachin
Thakur, Murtijapur Road, Akola,
District Akola. ..... Petitioner.
ig :: V e r s u s ::
1. The State of Maharashtra, through the
Secretary Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Director of Town Planning, State of
Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune-1.
3. Chief Officer, Municipal Council (M.C.)/
Nagar Parishad Mangarulpir,
Taluka Mangarulpir, District Washim.
4. Assistant Director Town Planner Washim,
Yojana Heights, Second Flour, Building of
Shri Patki, Hingoli Road, Washim.
5. The Collector, Washim,
District Washim. ..... Respondents.
==============================================
Shri G.K. Mundada, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri P.P. Deshmukh, Counsel for Respondent No.3.
Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1,2,4, & 5.
==============================================
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:01:38 :::
Judgment
wp5192.15
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. I.K. JAIN, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 20, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Heard Learned counsel Shri G.K. Mundada for the
petitioner, learned counsel Shri P.P. Deshmukh for respondent No.3-Chief
Officer and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri N.S. Khubalkar for
respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5 by issuing Rule and making it returnable
forthwith.
2. The land of the petitioner, having Survey No.198/1 area
admeasuring 1H 43R of village Mangrulpir, District Washim, is reserved
for Shopping Center and Parking vide Reservation No.55. Thus, revised
development plan has come into force on 28.11.2013.
3. The petitioner, desirous of developing that land, has sought
permission under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966 and it was rejected on 24.2.2014.
.....3/-
Judgment
wp5192.15
4. The petitioner, thereafter, served a purchase notice on
26.2.2014 under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning
Act, 1966 (for short, "the M.R.T.P. Act"). The State Government
confirmed that notice on 27.8.2014. In the result, it became obligatory for
respondent No.3 to acquire that land, within twelve months. That period
of twelve months expired on 26.8.2015.
5. It is admitted position that respondent No.3 could not
initiate any step for acquiring that land for paucity of funds.
6. During the arguments, respective learned counsel for the
respondents fairly inform that earlier there was a P.I.L. pending due to
such lapsing of reservations. However when the State Government
extended the time to acquire the land from twelve months to twenty-four
months and took some other steps, that P.I.L. has been disposed of on
3.3.2016.
7. Several such matters have come before this Court in this
roster and in all the matters, the lands are getting de-reserved because of
.....4/-
Judgment
wp5192.15
the Court's orders due to mandate of Section 127(1) or Section 49(7) of
the M.R.T.P. Act.
8. The question is, whether the M.R.T.P. has served any
purpose or it has only given rise to the litigation. The laudable purpose
behind enacting the M.R.T.P. Act cannot be ignored. Here, for want of
funds, the lands cannot be acquired and, therefore, the society cannot
have open spaces or garden or then other reservation for public utility, the
M.R.T.P. Act itself will stand defeated.
9. Perusal of order dated 3.3.2016 in P.I.L. No.79 of 2014
shows that the State Government has been issuing directions to the
planning authorities since 4.5.2006 i.e. since last ten years. In this
situation, we direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file their affidavits pointing
out the acquisitions made to honour the reservations under the M.R.T.P.
Act from the year 2006, till date. Similarly, number of reservations, which
are deemed to have lapsed because of the orders of this Court or because
of the orders of the State Government all over the State of Maharashtra,
shall also be disclosed in that affidavits. The affidavits be filed separately
.....5/-
Judgment
wp5192.15
by respondent Nos.1 and 2, within a period of six weeks from today.
10. In the instant matter, it is apparent that judgment dated
7.3.2016 delivered in Writ Petition No.4307 of 2015 clinches the issue.
The reservation, therefore, is deemed to have lapsed and the land of the
petitioner has become available for its use for the purpose to which
adjacent land can be put.
11. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition by making the Rule
absolute.
12. The Registry to register a P.I.L. on the strength of this
judgment to find out compliance with directions in paragraph No.9 above.
13. P.I.L. shall be heard by the appropriate Bench as per roster
assignment.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
