Bombay High Court
Sourabh Dinesh Bora vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 7 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp4307.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4307 OF 2015
Sourabh Dinesh Bora
aged 32 years, occupation -
Business, r/o c/o Harikisan
Vithaldasji Chandak,
Padmavati Chowk, Arvi City,
Tq. Arvi, District - Wardha. ... PETITIONER
Versus
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.
3. Chief Officer, Municipal Council (M.C.)
Nagar Parishad, Arvi, Tq. Arvi,
District - Wardha.
4. Town Planner, Town Planning Office,
Wardha, Ambedkar Chowk, Sawangi
Road, Near Stadium, Wardha.
5. The Collector, Wardha, Tq. & District
Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. M.S. Naik, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.
Shri M.D. Lakhey, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 07, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Shri Mundhada, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. Naik, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5
and Shri Lakhey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner, a land owner of a land reserved in
Development Plan, which has come into force from 01.12.2011,
wanted to develop it. His land is reserved for playground vide
Reservation No. 3; for garden and 12 mtrs DP road by Reservation
No. 2.
3. Admittedly, he sought permission of the Collector
under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning
Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to put it to any other
use and it was rejected on 31.12.2013. Thereafter on 13.01.2014
he has issued purchase notice under Section 49 of the Act and it
has been confirmed on 13.05.2014 by the State Government as
required by Section 49(4) thereof.
4. The obligation was upon Respondent No. 3 -
Municipal Council to acquire the land in accordance with the
provisions of Section 126 of the Act within one year. Section 49(7)
prescribes that in default, the reservation lapses.
5. Here, the period of one year has expired on
12.05.2015.
6. Respondent No. 3 - Municipal Council, for want of
funds, only could submit an application to the State Government.
Section 126(1)(c) of the Act, enables the Municipal Council to
submit such an application but then the law on the point is laid
down by the Division Benches of this Court. The judgment dated
10.01.2011 in Writ Petition No. 4393 of 2009 (M/s. Revati
Construction and Developers vs. State of Maharashtra), holds that
steps like mere filing of application with the State Government are
not sufficient and steps should have been meaningful. No such
steps including publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act have been taken in the matter.
7. The other Division Bench in the case of Subhash
Ramrao Jadhav & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at
2012 (4) Mh. L.J. 236, again adopts the same line of reasoning.
8. Here, Shri Lakhey, learned counsel has attempted to
demonstrate the poor financial condition of Municipal Council. He
stated that the Municipal Council has time and again requested the
State Government to release necessary funds for said purpose.
According to him, the amount in excess of Rs. Five crore is required
and Respondent No. 3 is not in a position to shoulder that burden.
9. The petitioner cannot be blamed in the matter. He has
completed the requisite statutory compliances and after expiry of
one year of confirmation of purchase notice, the land stands de-
reserved.
10.
Accordingly, we hold that the reservations mentioned
supra on the land of the petitioner are extinguished and stand
lapsed. The land has been made available to the petitioner for
development in accordance with the provisions of Section 49(7) of
the Act.
11. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
