Mishrilal Kanhaiyalalji ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5200 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-4447-15.odt

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

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 4447 OF 2015

 Mishrilal Kanhaiyalalji Mundhada,
 Aged : 87 years, Occu. Nil,
 Through his Power of Attorney
 Holder Shri Harish s/o Mishrilalji
 Mundhada, Aged about : 53 years,
 occu. : Agriculturist & Business,
 Both R/o Nutan Chowk, Dhamangaon
 Rly. Tq. Dhamangaon Railway,
 District - Amravati.                                             ..... PETITIONER

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

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

 2. Deputy Director of Town Planning
    Amravati Division, Near Jamthe
    Hospital, Congress Nagar Road,
    Amravati.

 3. Municipal Council, Dhamanaon
    Railway, District Amravati,
    through its Chief Officer.

 4. Assistant Director,
    Town Planning, Amravati,
    District Amravati.

 5. Dhamangaon Education Society,
    Tq. Dhamangaon Railway,
    District Amravati,
    Through its President.                                        ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A. R. Ingole, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri I. J. Damle, AGP for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.
 Shri Milind Rathi, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017                                     ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:57:25 :::
                                                  2                  J-WP-4447-15.odt

                                CORAM:-    
                                           SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                            ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

28/07/2017.

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

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration

that the land of the petitioner is free from reservation and the same

could be used for residential purpose.

According to the petitioner, the land of the petitioner is

wrongly shown for semi-public and public purpose in the final

development plan published in the year 1990. Before the reservation of

the land was shown for public and semi-public purpose in 1990, the

land was earlier reserved in the final development plan dated

12/10/1973 for town hall, library and shopping complex. It is the case

of the petitioner, that though the land of the petitioner was not

intended to be reserved for public and semi-public purpose, it is

wrongly shown to have been reserved for public and semi-public

purpose in the final development plan of the year 1990. The petitioner

has relied on a communication issued by the Assistant Director of Town

Planning, Amravati dated 13/04/2006 to submit that the land of the

petitioner is not affected by the reservation for public and semi-public

purpose but a part of the land of the petitioner could be affected as the

same would be required for construction of 15 meter wide road.

3 J-WP-4447-15.odt

The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed an affidavit-

in-reply. The respondents have denied in the affidavit-in-reply that the

land of the petitioner is not reserved for semi-public or public purpose.

It is specifically denied that the land of the petitioner was inadvertently

included in the red zone instead of including it in yellow zone for

residential purpose. It is clearly stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the

land of the petitioner is partly included in the proposed 15 meters wide

road and it is partly included in the public and semi-public zone. It is

stated that the land is not reserved for a specific authority but it is

reserved for a public and semi-public purpose. It is stated that the

proposal for modification, as submitted by the Municipal Council was

rightly rejected by the State Government by the order dated

10/10/2006 as though the land was not required by the Municipal

Council, the same was reserved for public purpose and semi-public

purpose. It is stated that since the land of the petitioner is required by

the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, the same cannot be said to be free from

reservation.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it

appears that a declaration as sought by the petitioner cannot be

granted. It cannot be said, as submitted on behalf of the petitioner by

relying on a communication issued by the Assistant Director of Town

Planning, Amravati to the petitioner dated 13/04/2006 that the land of

the petitioner is not affected by the final development plan. It cannot be

4 J-WP-4447-15.odt

said on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that

the land of the petitioner is inadvertently shown in the red zone though

it ought to have been shown in the yellow zone for residential purpose.

It would not be for this Court to hold that the land is inadvertently

shown to be reserved for semi-public purpose and public purpose when

it is the case of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 that the land is reserved

for public and semi-public purpose and it is not inadvertently shown in

the red zone. If the petitioner wishes to seek for the lapsing of

reservation, the petitioner may do so by taking appropriate steps.

However, it would not be proper for this Court to grant a declaration in

the circumstances of the case that the land of the petitioner is free from

reservation.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed

with no order as to costs.

                      JUDGE                                         JUDGE




 Choulwar