Bombay High Court
Chaya Dipakrao Deshmukh And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 30 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp4898.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4898 OF 2015
1) Chhaya Dipakrao Deshmukh,
age 41 year, occupation : nil,
r/o Vidut Nagar, V.M.V. Road,
Amravati, Taluq and District
Amravati.
2) Prabhakar H. Deshmukh (dead),
through his legal heir -
2-A) Pramila P. Deshmukh,
age 62 years, occupation : household,
r/o Rathi Nagar, Amravati,
Taluq and District Amravati.
2-B) Umesh P. Deshmukh,
age 39 years, occupation : nil,
r/o Rathi Nagar, Amravati,
Taluq and District Amravati.
2-C) Mahavi Manoj Rathod,
age 42 years, occupation : nil,
r/o Rathi Nagar, Amravati,
Taluq and District Amravati.
3) Kishor Sudhakarrao Ulhe,
occupation : non known,
r/o Uday Colony, V.M.V. Road,
Amravati, Taluq and District :
Amravati. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1) The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) Assistant Director of Town,
Planning Amravati Municipal
::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:32:14 :::
2 wp4898.15
Corporation, Amravati.
3) Municipal Corporation, Amravati,
through its Commissioner,
Amravati Municipal Corporation,
Taluq and District Amravati. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
ig----------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
, J.) :
Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ
petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the
reservation of land of the petitioners to the extent of 0.475 HR in Survey
No.165/5 of Mouza Rahatgaon for a Primary School, vide reservation
No.110, has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
The petitioners claim to be the owners of land, of which
0.4575 HR was reserved for a primary School in the final development
3 wp4898.15
plan that was published in December 1992. Since the respondent no.3
did not take any steps for acquisition of the land within a period of ten
years from the publication of the final development plan in December
1992, the petitioners issued a notice to the respondent no.3 under Section
127 of the Act on 25/10/2012. Since no effective steps are taken by the
respondent no.3 for acquisition of the land as required by the provisions of
Section 127 of the Act within one year from the date of service of the
notice, the petitioners have sought the aforesaid declaration.
Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that
despite service of the notice on the respondent no.3 under Section 127 of
the Act on 29/10/2012, the respondent no.3 has not taken any effective
steps and notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is
not issued. It is stated that if the effective steps are not taken by the
appropriate Authority within a period of one year from the date of service
of the notice under Section 127 of the Act, the reservation of the land
under final development plan would lapse.
Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.3, states
that the respondent no.3 had sent the necessary proposal for acquisition
of the land to the State Government. It is, however, fairly admitted that
effective steps as required by the provisions of Section 127 of the Act are
not taken by the respondent no.3 and the Section 6 notification is not yet
issued.
4 wp4898.15
In view of the statements recorded hereinabove, it is clear that
the respondent no.3 did not take any effective steps as required by the
provisions of Section 127 of the Act within a period of one year from the
date of service of the notice on the respondent no.3. Hence, in view of the
provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act, the reservation of the land of the
petitioners would lapse.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the petitioners to
the extent of 0.475 HR in Field Survey No.165/5 of Mouza Rahatgaon,
vide reservation No.110, has lapsed in view of the provisions of
Section 127 of the Act and the petitioners are free to develop the land as is
permissible in the case of the adjacent land as per the relevant final
development plan.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
5 wp4898.15
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of the original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : Uploaded on :
Kamal H. Jeswani 03/10/2016
Private Secretary
