Bombay High Court
Pravin Kanahiyalal Nathani vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 17 January, 2018
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
1 J-WP-1341-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1341 OF 2017
Pravin Kanahiyalal Nathani,
Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Mangalwari-peth, Umred,
Dist. Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Municipal Council (M.C.) /
Nagar Parishad, Umred
through its Chief Officer Umred,
Tq. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.
3. Assistant Director of Town Planning,
Government Administrative Building
No.1, 2nd Flore, Civil Lines,
Nagpur - 440 001.
4. District Sports Officer
Dist. Nagpur, Koradi Road,
Divisional Sports Complex,
Mankapur, Koradi Road,
Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur Pin 440 013.
5. The Collector Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur,
Dist. Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G. K. Mundhada, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ambarish Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :
17/01/2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
, J.)
2 J-WP-1341-17.odt
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission.
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that
the reservation of the land of the petitioner in village Umred for Sports
Complex has lapsed under the provisions of Section 127(1) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and the petitioner would
be free to develop the land in the manner permissible to the adjacent
land as per the final development plan.
The land of the petitioner was reserved for Sports Complex
as per the final development plan which came into force w.e.f.
08/07/2003. The petitioner served a purchase notice on the
respondents through his counsel on 19/01/2015 for acquiring the land
within the period prescribed under Section 127 of the Act. On
31/01/2015, the respondent No.2 - Municipal Council asked the
petitioner to tender the Vakalatnama and certain documents pertaining
to the property. The said documents were submitted by the petitioner to
the Municipal Council. Since the Municipal Council has not taken any
effective steps for the acquisition of the land within 24 months from the
date of service of the notice as per the amended provisions of Section
127(1) of the Act, the petitioner has sought the aforesaid declaration by
filing the writ petition on 02/03/2017.
3 J-WP-1341-17.odt
According to the petitioner, since no effective steps for the
acquisition of the land are initiated by the Municipal Council within 24
months and since the Section 6 Notification is not issued, the
declaration as sought by the petitioner needs to be granted.
Shri Ambarish Joshi, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 states by
referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.4
- District Sports Officer that the sports complex is already constructed
on the adjoining land and the land of the petitioner is not required for
the construction of the sports complex. It is stated that on the basis of
the reply filed on behalf of the Municipal Council, an appropriate order
may be passed.
We have perused the reply filed on behalf of the respondent
No.2 - Municipal Council. The respondent No.2 - Municipal Council has
not disputed that the purchase notice was served on the Municipal
Council in January, 2015. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of the Municipal Council that the Municipal Council was not able
to pay the compensation to the petitioner due to financial difficulty. It
appears from the reply of the Municipal Council that the Municipal
Council had not taken any effective steps for the acquisition of the land
and the Section 6 Notification was admittedly is not issued.
4 J-WP-1341-17.odt
Since the Section 6 Notification is not issued by the
respondents for the acquisition of land of the petitioner within 24
months from the date of service of the purchase notice, there would be
deemed lapsing of the reservation of the land of the petitioner in view
of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. It is well settled that if the
land of a 'person interested' is not acquired within 10 years from the
date of publication of the final development plan and within 24 months
from the date of service of the purchase notice as per the amended
provisions of Section 127 of the Act (as amended on 29/08/2015) the
steps to acquire the land are not taken, it could be said that the
reservation of the land of the 'person interested' is deemed to have
lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. In the instant
case, the respondents had not acquired the land of the petitioner within
10 years from the date of issuance of the development plan in 2003 and
had not taken any effective steps within 24 months from the date of
service of the purchase notice on 19/01/2015. Since no effective steps
for the acquisition of the land were initiated within 24 months, the
reservation of the land of the petitioner is deemed to have lapsed.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the
petitioner, specifically described in the petition, for sports complex has
lapsed under Section 127(1) of the Act and the land shall become
5 J-WP-1341-17.odt
available to the petitioner for the purpose of development, as is
permissible in the case of adjoining land, under the relevant
development plan.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
