Bombay High Court
Vivek S/O Rajanji Chhabda vs State Of Maha. Thr Chief ... on 5 January, 2018
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
0501WP4740.17-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4740 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- Vivek s/o RajanjiChhabda, aged major,
occupation Business, R/o Gandhinagar,
Amravati, Districdt Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief
Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya-32.
2. The Municipal Corporation of Amravati,
Rajkamal Chowk, Amravati (through its
Commissioner).
3. The Assistant Director of Town Planning,
Municipal Corporation, Amravati, Rajkamal
Chowk, Amravati.
4. The Collector, Amravati Camp, District
Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.A.Rajurkar & Mr. R.S.Suryawanshi, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.M.Lonare, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 4.
Mr. Sushil Ghodeswar, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 05.01.2018
0501WP4740.17-Judgment 2/5
O R A L J U D G M E N T (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.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that
the reservation of the land of the petitioner, bearing Plot Nos.1, 2, 3 and
4 in Survey No.192/4 of Mouza Badnera has lapsed in view of the
provisions of section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 and the petitioner would be entitled to develop the
land as is permissible for the adjoining land as per the relevant final
development plan.
3. The petitioner is the owner of Plot Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 in
Survey No.192/4 of Mouza Badnera. The final development plan for
Badnera City was published on 25/02/1993. Since no steps were taken
by the Planning Authority-Municipal Corporation, Amravati for the
acquisition of the land within 10 years from the date of publication of
the final development plan, the petitioner served a purchase notice
under section 127 of the Act on the respondent-Municipal Corporation
0501WP4740.17-Judgment 3/5
on 22/07/2015. Since no steps were taken by the Municipal
Corporation for the acquisition of the said land within 12 months from
the date of service of the notice on the respondent-Municipal
Corporation, according to the petitioner, the reservation of his land
under the final development plan was lapsed, in view of the provisions
of section 127(1) of the Act.
4. Shri Ghodeswar, the learned counsel for the respondent-
Municipal Corporation fairly admits that the Corporation had not taken
any effective steps for the acquisition of the land, inasmuch as the
relevant notification for the acquisition of the land was not published
within twelve months from the date of receipt of the notice on
24/07/2015. It is stated that the Corporation had offered TDR to the
petitioner, but the petitioner had refused to accept the same. It is stated
that the Corporation was ready to grant TDR to the petitioner as at the
relevant time, it was not in a position to acquire the land under the
provisions of the Act.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondent-Municipal Corporation, it appears that the reservation of the
land of the petitioner is deemed to have lapsed, in view of the
provisions of section 127(1) of the Act. Admittedly, no steps were taken
0501WP4740.17-Judgment 4/5
by the Municipal Corporation or the State Government for the
acquisition of the said land within 10 years from the date of publication
of the final development plan on 25/02/1993. Admittedly, the
notification under the Act of 2013 was not issued by the Municipal
Corporation or the State Government for the acquisition of the land of
the petitioner within twelve months from the date of receipt of the
notice on 24/07/2015. In view of the clear provisions of section 127(1)
of the Act of 1966 and the inaction on the part of the Municipal
Corporation to take effective steps for the acquisition of the land of the
petitioner, the reservation of the land of the petitioner is deemed to
have lapsed. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to
hold that the land of the petitioner is deemed to have been released
from the reservation and the petitioner would be entitled to develop the
land as is permissible, in the case of the adjacent land under the
relevant final development plan. It cannot be said that there is no
lapsing of the reservation merely because the respondent-Municipal
Corporation had offered TDR to the petitioner and the petitioner had
refused to accept the same.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the
petitioner in the final development plan has lapsed and the land is
0501WP4740.17-Judgment 5/5
deemed to have been released from the reservation and the same is
available to the petitioner for the purpose of development as is
permissible in the case of the adjacent land under the final development
plan.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
