Shri. Rushabh S/O Mahesh Shah, And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Urban ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5548 Bom

                                                   1              J-WP-4287-13.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        WRIT PETITION NO.4287 OF 2013

 1. Shri Rushabh s/o Mahesh Shah,
    Aged about : 33 years, Occ. Business,
    R/o Nandanwan, Nagpur.

 2. Shri Aditya s/o Mahesh Shah,
    Aged about : 31 years, Occ. Business,
    R/o Nandanwan, Nagpur.

 3. Shri Satish s/o Laljibhai Patel,
    Aged about : 38 years, Occ. Business,
    R/o Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur.

 4. Shri Nathabhai s/o Mayabhai Patel,
    Aged about : 47 years, Occ. Business,
    R/o Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur.                         ..... PETITIONERS

                               ...V E R S U S...

 1. State of Maharashtra,
    Urban Development Department,
    Through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
    Mumbai - 32.

 2. Additional Collector & Competent
    Authority under the Urban Land
    (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976,
    having office at Collectorate Civil
    Lines, Nagpur.

 3. Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC),
    Through its Municipal Commissioner,
    Civil Lines, Nagpur.

 4. Assistant Director,
    Town Planning Department,
    Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
    having office at 1st Floor,
    Narang Tower, Pam Road,
    Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001.




::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017                           ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:37:09 :::
                                                         2                   J-WP-4287-13.odt

 5. Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT),
      Through its Chairman,
      Civil Lines, Nagpur.                                        ... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri D. V. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.
 Mrs. H. N. Prabhu, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
 Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
 Shri R. O. Chabra, Advocate for the respondent No.5.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                 ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

03/08/2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order

of the respondent No.4 rejecting the application of the petitioner for

grant of TDR under the provisions of Section 126 of the Maharashtra

Regional and Town Planning Act. By amending the writ petition, the

petitioners have challenged clause (m) in the agreement dated

05/11/2001 fixing the compensation for the acquisition of a part of the

land at Rs.1/-.

The land of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners

was acquired by the Nagpur Improvement Trust by an agreement dated

05/11/2001. In the said agreement, in terms of clause (m), the

compensation for the part of the land of the predecessor-in-title of the

petitioners was fixed at Rs.1/-. The petitioners made an application to

the Nagpur Improvement Trust seeking TDR under the provisions of

Section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act. The said applications were rejected by

3 J-WP-4287-13.odt

the orders dated 21/06/2013. By amending the writ petition, the

petitioners have challenged the clause (m) in the agreement that

provides for compensation of Rs.1/- for a part of the acquired land.

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties

and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, specially the

agreement dated 05/11/2001, that the acquisition of the land was not

made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning

Act. It appears that the acquisition was made by private negotiations in

terms of the provisions of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act. If that is

so, the petitioners could not have applied for TDR under the provisions

of Section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act. The petitioners cannot in the

circumstances of the case, effectively challenge the impugned order

dated 21/06/2013.

There is also no merit in the challenge to clause (m) in

the agreement dated 05/11/2001. A similar challenge came up for

consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Narayanrao Gawande Public Trust vrs. State of Maharashtra and others

and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, by the judgment reported in 2016

(4) SCC 443 held that the objection to the development agreement on

the ground that no consideration was paid, was liable to be rejected. In

view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prayer made by

the petitioners by amending the writ petition, also cannot be granted.

4 J-WP-4287-13.odt

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed

with no order as to costs.

                      JUDGE                                         JUDGE




 Choulwar