Bombay High Court
Laxmikant Motilal Somani And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 wp 6266.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1001 WRIT PETITION NO.6266 OF 2019
1. Laxmikant S/o Motilal Somani
Age: 64 Years, Occ.: Agri.
R/o. Nandi Stop Ausa Road, Latur,
Dist.: Latur
2. Subhash S/o Tukaram Kasle
Age: 56 Years, Occ.: Business,
R/o.: Basveshwar Chowk, Latur,
Dist.: Latur
3. Krushnadevi W/o. Narendra Agrawal,
Age: 55 Years, Occ.: Business,
R/o.: Adarsh Colony, Latur,
Dist.: Latur .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Collector,
Collectorate, Latur
3. The Commissioner,
Latur Municipal Corporation, Latur
4. Town Planning Officer,
Latur Municipal Corporation, Latur
.. Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners:Mr.Deshpande Dhananjay P.
AGP for Respondents No. 1&2: Mr. S. G. Karlekar
Advocate for Respondents No. 3&4: Mr. H. V. Patil
...
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
2 wp 6266.2019
DATE: 06th AUGUST, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.):
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the
consent of parties, matter is taken up for final
hearing.
2. The land of the petitioners bearing Survey
No. 73 to the extent of 14 Are is reserved as Site
No. 217 for playground under the Development Plan
prepared by respondent Municipal Corporation in
the year-2002.
3. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners had
issued notice U/Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to 'MRTP Act') on 16.8.2016 and the same
is served upon the Municipal Corporation on the
very same day. The learned Counsel submits that
steps for acquisition are not initiated within a
period of 2 years, the reservation stands lapsed.
3 wp 6266.2019
4. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Municipal
Corporation submits that the Corporation has
offered T.D.R. to the petitioners.
5. The factual matrix as narrated above is not
disputed. The notice U/Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act is
served upon the Planning Authority on 16.08.2016.
Till date, steps for acquisition are not
initiated, no declaration U/Sec. 126 of the MRTP
Act read with Section 19 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is
issued. The reservation stands lapsed.
6. Section 126 of the MRTP Act is a fetter on
the powers of eminent domain.
7. The land is reserved for playground. Open
spaces, gardens and the playground are lungs of
the city. The Apex Court in case of Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others Vs.
Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar and others reported in
AIR 2017 SC (Supp) 423, has observed that the
4 wp 6266.2019
Planning Authority should take all the steps to
acquire the properties reserved for garden, open
spaces.
8. By operation of statute, the reservation
stands lapsed, if, steps for acquisition are not
taken within the prescribed period. Considering
that the land is reserved for playground, we would
still grant a year's time to the respondents to
acquire the property and direct the petitioners
not to take any steps on the said land for a
period of one year.
9. In light of the above, we pass the following
order.
10. It is declared that the reservation on the
petitioner's land admeasuring 14 Are of Survey
No. 73 reserved as Site No. 217 for playground
stands released from reservation. However,
considering that the reservation was for
playground the petitioners shall not use the said
land for any purpose for a period of 1 year. The
5 wp 6266.2019
Planning Authority may acquire the property during
this period.
11. In case, the Planning Authority does not
acquire the writ property of the petitioners
within a period of 1 year, then the petitioners
shall be entitled to use the property as the user
of adjacent land is permissible.
12. Rule is accordingly made absolute.
13. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No
costs.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe
