Ambabai Namdeo Raut vs State Of Mah. & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3121 Bom

                                1       11-WP-5254.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           WRIT PETITION NO.5254 OF 2002 
                      
1. Ambabai Namdeo Raut (deceased),
   Through her Legal representatives-
   Ashok s/o. Karbhari Pawar,
   Age : 45 years, Occ. Agri.,
   r/o. Saraswati Colony, Ward No.7,
   Near Devakar Wasti, Shrirampur,
   Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar

2. Jitendra Rupchand Kasliwal,
   Age : 34 years, Occ. Agri.,
   r/o. Near Bus Stand, Shrirampur,
   Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar

3. Surendra Bhagchand Kasliwal,
   Age : 34 years, Occ. Agri.,
   r/o. Near Bus Stand, Shrirampur
   Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar ..Petitioners
              Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
   Through Secretary,
   Urban Development Department,
   Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

2. Collector,
   Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

3. Municipal Council,
   Shrirampur, 
   At post Shrirampur,
   Dist. Ahmednagar

4. Arbitrator,
   Town Planning Scheme Shrirampur,
   Dist. Ahmednagar                 ..Respondents




 ::: Uploaded on - 17/06/2017       ::: Downloaded on - 18/06/2017 00:45:34 :::
                                         2           11-WP-5254.odt


                         --
Mr.P.R.Patil, Advocate for petitioner

Mr.A.S.Shinde, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 

Mr.V.S.Bedre, Advocate for respondent no.3
                         --

                                 CORAM :  T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                          SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : JUNE 13, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.) :

This petition is filed seeking relief of

giving directions to the respondents to pay

compensation of Rs.1.33 Crores to the petitioner

before taking possession of the land of the

petitioner bearing Survey No.2139 situated at Tq.

Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar so also for further

relief like giving directions to de-reserve the

land of the petitioner, etc.

2. Both sides are heard.

3. It appears that the land of the

petitioner came to be reserved in the year 1979

for a play ground. It is the contention of the

3 11-WP-5254.odt

petitioner that in the year 1992, she had applied

to the local body for deleting her land from the

scheme due to some peculiar circumstances. It is

the case of the petitioner that the local body has

passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner,

but the scheme continued under the provisions of

the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966

("the Act", for short). It is the case of

petitioner that the respondents are now showing

undue haste and they are trying to take possession

of the land of the petitioner when they are not

showing interest in taking possession of the lands

of other landowners. In view of this grievance,

the aforesaid reliefs are claimed.

4. The submissions made by the learned

Counsel for the parties would show that the

procedure, as laid down under Sections 72 onwards

of the Act is being followed. Even an objection

was filed by the petitioner before the Arbitrator,

however, the said objection came to be rejected by

4 11-WP-5254.odt

the Arbitrator, which decision has been challenged

by the petitioner before the appellate Authority

and the appeal is still pending.

5. While invoking writ jurisdiction, this

Court is expected to consider the facts like,

whether the authority concerned has jurisdiction

to do the act and whether, the procedure, as laid

down by the statute, is being followed. The

provisions of Sections 83 and 89 of the Act show

that powers are vested with the Town Planning

Authority to take possession of the land for a

town planning scheme. An appeal is provided under

the Act and such appeal has also been filed by the

petitioner.

6. The learned Counsel for respondent no.3 -

Municipal Council placed reliance on the

observations made by this Court while deciding

Writ Petition No.4971 of 2003 (Shashikant s/o.

Shivram Boravake and ors. Vs. The State of

5 11-WP-5254.odt

Maharashtra and ors.) by judgment dated

16.07.2014. In the said judgment, this Court has

considered the procedure which is expected to be

followed when there is objection of present

nature.

7. In the present case, however, it can be

said that the petitioner is trying to stall the

entire scheme provided under the Act. It can also

be said that the Writ Petition itself is pre-

mature, as even the objection is not finally

decided by the appellate authority. The authority

is expected to act fairly and it is not expected

from it to have a discriminatory approach. The

authority cannot pick and choose and proceed only

against one party, though there are provisions to

act in particular circumstances. This Court hopes

that the authority will act fairly.

8. However, the reliefs claimed by the

petitioner in this petition cannot be granted by

this Court in view of the provisions of the

6 11-WP-5254.odt

aforesaid special enactment.

9. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ

Petition is disposed of. No costs.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

kbp