Navnit Bhojrajji Lakhotiya And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 565 Bom

                                                   1              J-WP-2218-17.odt

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

                        WRIT PETITION NO.2218 OF 2017

 1. Navnit Bhojrajji Lakhotiya,
    Age : 52 years, 
    Occupation : Business.

 2. Ajit Ramnarayan Gupta,
    Age : 51 years, 
    Occupation : Business.

 3. Ravindra Nathulalji Naval,
    Age : 57 years, 
    Occupation : Business.

 4. Pramod Lunkaranji Chandak,
    Age : 52 years, 
    Occupation : Business.

      All R/o C/o Navnit Bhojrajji 
      Lakhotiya, Akola Road, Akot,
      Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.                            ..... PETITIONERS

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

 1. The State of Maharashtra
    through the Secretary 
    Urban Development Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2. The Director of Town Planning,
    State of Maharashtra,
    Central Building, Pune-1.

 3. The Municipal Council (M.C.)/
    Nagar Parishad Arvi,
    through its Chief Officer,
    Tq. Arvi, Dist. Wardha.

 4. Town Planner
    Wardha, Ambedkar Square,
    Sawangi Road,
    Near Stadium, Wardha.




::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018                           ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:23:40 :::
                                                     2                  J-WP-2218-17.odt

 5. The Collector,
    Wardha,
    Tq. & Dist. Wardha.                                      ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri G. K. Mundhada, Advocate for the petitioners.
 Shri Ambarish Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5.
 Shri M. D. Lakhey, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DATED :

17/01/2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK , J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that

the land of the petitioners, reserved for garden vide Reservation No.24

has lapsed under Section 49(7) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act.

The petitioners are the joint owners of 0.70 Hr of land in

Survey No.242/2 of Mouza Arvi, Dist. Wardha. The revised

development plan for Arvi was published on 01/12/2011 and the land

of the petitioners was reserved for garden. The petitioners applied for

permission to develop the land but the same was rejected on the ground

that the land of the petitioners was reserved for garden. The petitioners

issued a notice on the respondent Nos.1 to 4 under Section 49 of the

3 J-WP-2218-17.odt

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act as the petitioners were

unable to develop the land in view of the refusal of the permission. The

notice dated 17/11/2015 was served on the respondents on the same

day. The respondent No.2 - the Director of Town Planning confirmed

the purchase notice on 04/04/2016 and asked the respondent No.3 -

Municipal Council, Arvi to acquire the same. Since the Municipal

Council, Arvi has not acquired the same within one year from the date

of confirmation of the notice viz. on 04/04/2016, the petitioners have

sought a declaration that the reservation of the land of the petitioners

has lapsed and the same is deemed to have been released from the

reservation.

Shri Ambarish Joshi, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and Shri

Lakhey, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 do not dispute that

a notice under Section 49 was served by the petitioners on the

respondent Nos.1 to 4 on 17/11/2015. It is not disputed by the

concerned respondents that the notice was confirmed by the Director of

Town Planning on 04/04/2016. It is also not disputed that within one

year from the date of confirmation of the notice on 04/04/2016, the

Municipal Council has failed to make an application to acquire the land.

According to the Municipal Council, due to paucity of funds, the

Municipal Council could not take steps for the acquisition of the land.

4 J-WP-2218-17.odt

Since it is admitted on behalf of the Municipal Council that

it did not have funds for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners

and that it did not make an application for acquisition of the land

within one year from the date of confirmation of the notice, in view of

the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, specially the provisions of sub-

sections (4), (5) and (7) of Section 49, the reservation of the land of the

petitioners is deemed to have lapsed and the land of the petitioners is

deemed to have been released from the reservation. A declaration, as

sought by the petitioners, needs to be granted in the circumstances of

the case.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the

petitioners vide reservation No.24 for garden has lapsed under the

provisions of Section 49 of the Act and the petitioners are free to

develop the land, as is permissible in the case of adjacent land under

the relevant development plan.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                                    JUDGE                               JUDGE


 Choulwar