Jawaharlal S/O. Chunnilalji ... vs State Of Maha., Thr Sect. Urban ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3446 Bom

     WP1023.16[J].odt                              1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                       
                              WRIT PETITION NO.1023 OF 2016

     Jawaharlal s/o Chunnilalji Bohra,
     Aged about 82 years,




                                                      
     Occupation - Agriculturist,
     through Power of Attorney Holder
     Vinod Jawaharlal Bohra,
     Aged : Major, Occupation-Business,
     Both R/o. Om Niwas, Bhiwapurkar




                                                  
     Lane, Bhaji Bazar, Amravati,
     Tahsil and District - Amravati-444 601.
                              ig                        ..             Petitioner

                                    .. Versus ..
                            
     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 Planing,
        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.                  ..             Respondents

                              ..........
     Shri A.R. Ingole, counsel for the petitioner,
     Ms. R.V. Kaliya, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6,
     Shri J.B. Kasat, counsel for respondent no.5.
                              ..........



    ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016                       ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:24:44 :::
      WP1023.16[J].odt                                2
                                   CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A. NAIK  AND
                                            MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JUNE 28, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (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.

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the

reservation of the land of the petitioner in Survey No.8 of Mouza Tarkheda has

lapsed, in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional

and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the petitioner would be entitled to

development the land, as permissible to the adjoining land, as per the relevant

development plan.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the land ad-measuring

4.86 H.R., 0.886 H.R. and 0.28 H.R. was reserved for high school, play ground,

library, D.P. Road and other utility, as per the final development plan

published in the year 1980. Since no steps were taken by the respondents for

acquisition of the land for more than ten years, the petitioner served a notice

on the respondents, dated 20.6.2014 asking them to acquire the land within

the time specified under the provisions of Section 127 of the Act or else the

reservation of the land for the aforesaid purpose would be deemed to have

been lapsed. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the service of notice on

the respondents, the respondents have not taken any effective steps towards

the acquisition of the land within a period of one year from the service of the

notice. It is stated that the Section 6 Notification is not issued, till date.

Shri Kasat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent no.5-appropriate authority, has tendered an affidavit-in-reply on

record. It is admitted by the respondent no.5 that a notice, dated 20.6.2014

was duly served on it. It is further admitted that the Section 6 Notification is

not issued as the respondent no.5 was not in a position to deposit the amount

of Rs.8,44,62,740/-, as was required to be deposited, as per the request of the

Land Acquisition Officer. It is stated that due to paucity of funds, the

respondents had not issued the Section 6 Notification.

It is clear on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply that the reservation

of the land of the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose has lapsed in view of the

provisions of Section 127 of the Act. The respondent no.5 has not taken any

effective steps within a period of one year from the service of the notice and

the Section 6 Notification is not issued, till date. In view of the provisions of

Section 127 of the Act, the reservation of the land of the petitioner is deemed

to have been lapsed and the petitioner is entitled to develop the land, as

permissible to the adjoining land, as per the relevant development plan.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the circumstances of

the case, there would be no order as to costs.

                              JUDGE                                                JUDGE
     Gulande