Bombay High Court
Satish Mungilal Somani And ... vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, ... on 10 January, 2018
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
wp1670.17.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1670/2017
PETITIONERS : 1. Satish Mungilal Somani
Age 62 years, Occ : Business.
2. Shyamsunder Bansidhar Lahoti
Age 40 years, Occ : Business.
Petitioner no.1 & 2 R/o 302, Akshya Aditya
Apartment, Devrankar Nagar, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra through the
Secretary Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Municipal Council (M.C.)/Nagar Parishad
Murtijapur through its Chief Officer,
Murtijapur, Dist. Akola.
3. Depot Manager Murtijapur of Maharashtra
State Regional Transport Corporation Office at
Murtijapur Dist. Akola.
4. Managing Director of Maharashtra
State Regional Transport Corporation,
Wahatuk Bhavan, Mumbai Central.
5. Vice Chairman of Maharashtra
State Regional Transport Corporation,
Wahatuk Bhavan, Mumbai Central.
6. The Collector, Akola through
Sub-Divisional Officer Murtijapur, acting as
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil Office
Murtijapur, Tq. Murtijapur & Dit. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2018 01:47:27 :::
wp1670.17.odt
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.K. Mundhada, Counsel for petitioners
Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 6
Shri P.P. Deshmukh, Counsel for respondent no.2
Shri Amol Chakotkar, Counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1671/2017
PETITIONERS : 1. Satish Mungilal Somani
Age 62 years, Occ : Business.
2. Shyamsunder Bansidhar Lahoti
Age 40 years, Occ : Business.
Petitioner no.1 & 2 R/o 302, Akshya Aditya
Apartment, Devrankar Nagar Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra through the
Secretary Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Municipal Council (M.C.)/Nagar Parishad
Murtijapur through its Chief Officer,
Murtijapur, Dist. Akola.
3. The Collector, Akola through
Sub-Divisional Officer Murtijapur, acting as
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil Office
Murtijapur, Tq. Murtijapur & Dit. Akola.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.K. Mundhada, Counsel for petitioners
Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3
Shri P.P. Deshmukh, Counsel for respondent no.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2018 01:47:27 :::
wp1670.17.odt
3
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 10/01/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical
and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are
decided by this common judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek a declaration
that the reservation of the land of the petitioners for S.T. stand, primary
school and playground has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127
of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the
petitioners would be free to develop the land in the manner permissible to
the adjacent land as per the relevant final development plan.
The lands of the petitioners, more specifically described in
the petitions are located in Murtizapur city. The final development plan
for Murtizapur city was published on 1/7/1989. Since the Municipal
Council did not acquire the lands of the petitioners within a period of ten
years from the issuance of the final development plan on 1/7/1989, the
petitioners served a purchase notice on the Municipal Council on
wp1670.17.odt
31/3/2015. Since in the said notice only one of the reservations was
mentioned and the reservation for the primary school and playground
was not mentioned, yet another purchase notice was served by the
petitioners on the Municipal Council on 6/7/2015. Though the notices are
duly served on the Municipal Council, the Municipal Council did not take
any effective steps for the acquisition of the land. Hence, the petitioners
have sought the declaration as aforesaid.
Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the Municipal
Council submits that the Municipal Council has passed a resolution for the
acquisition of the land and has sent the proposal for the acquisition
thereof to the State Government. It is stated that in this background it
cannot be said that the reservation of the land of the petitioners has
lapsed as no effective steps are taken by the Municipal Council for the
acquisition of the same. It is stated that though the Municipal Council
asked the petitioners to submit the documents of title, they were not
submitted. It is submitted that the Municipal Council had asked the
petitioners to inform as to what could be the valuation of the land that
was sought to be acquired but the petitioner had not responded. It is
submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the petitions are liable to
be dismissed.
wp1670.17.odt
The learned Counsel for the Maharashtra State Regional
Transport Corporation (M.S.R.T.C.) submitted that the land of the
petitioners is not required by the M.S.R.T.C. and therefore, the
Corporation does not seriously oppose the prayer made in the writ
petitions.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the declaration as sought by the petitioners needs to be granted and
it needs to be held that the land of the petitioners is released from
reservation and the petitioners would be entitled to develop the same as
is permissible for the adjacent land as per the relevant development plan.
Admittedly, though the final development plan was published on
1/7/1989 the land of the petitioners was not acquired within a period of
ten years there from. Since no steps were taken for the acquisition of the
land within ten years, the petitioners had served two notices dated
31/3/2015 and 6/7/2015 on the respondent - Municipal Council, in
view of the provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Act. It was necessary for
the Municipal Council to have issued the relevant notification for the
acquisition of the land within twelve months from the date of service of
purchase notice. Admittedly, no such notification is issued by the
Municipal Council till date. In the circumstances of the case, the
reservation of the land of the petitioners is deemed to have lapsed in view
wp1670.17.odt
of the provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Act. The submission made on
behalf of the Municipal Council that since the petitioners did not submit
the documents of title and also did not inform as to what could be the
market value of the land of the petitioners the writ petitions are liable to
be dismissed, is ill-founded and is liable to be rejected. A person issuing
the purchase notice under Section 127 of the Act is only required to prima
facie bring to the notice of the authorities concerned as to how it has
interest in the land in respect of which the purchase notice is issued. The
petitioners claim to be the joint owners of the land and the 7/12 extract
was dispatched by the petitioners along with purchase notice. The
Municipal Council has not disputed that the copy of the 7/12 extract was
duly served on it. It is time and again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court that it would not be for the planning or the development
authority to make a roving enquiry into the title of a person interested in
the land in the proceedings under Section 127 of the Act. It is not the case
of the Municipal Council that the Municipal Council had doubts about the
interest of the petitioners in the concerned land. The other objection
raised on behalf of the Municipal Council that since the petitioners did
not inform about the market value of the land the acquisition could not be
made, is equally ill-founded. The person interested in the land is not
obliged to supply this information to the planning or the development
wp1670.17.odt
authority. In fact, the Municipal Council is in possession of the ready-
reckoner pertaining to the market value of the land and the objection
raised on behalf of the Municipal Council just for the sake of it.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are
allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the lands of the
petitioners has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 (1) of the
Act and it would be permissible for the petitioners to develop the land in
the manner permissible to the adjacent land as per the relevant final
development plan. The concerned respondent should take appropriate
steps in pursuance of this order.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
