Bombay High Court
Parubai Alias Parwatibai ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 16 March, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
4116.20WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4116 OF 2020
1] Parubai @ Parwatibai w/o. Rangnath
Pathare, Age: 58 years, Occup.Agril.
R/o. Rahuri Bk., Ta.Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
2] Balasaheb Bhanudas Pathare,
Age: Major, Occup. Agril.
R/o. : Rahuri Bk., Ta.Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
3] Kamal @ Alka w/o. Suresh Pathare,
Age: Major, Occup. Agril.
R/o. Rahuri Bk., Ta. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
4] Manisha Somnath Mehetre
Aeg: 33 years, Occup. Agril.,
R/o. Loni (Bk), Tq. Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.
5] Rupali Dinesh Bhujbal,
Age: 30 years, Occup. Agril.
R/o. Aale, Ta. Junnar,
District Pune.
6] Shraddha @ Alka Nanasaheb Varhade,
Age: 42 years, Occup. Agril.,
R/o. Rahata, Ta. Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.
7] Subhash Rangnath Pathare,
Age: 64 years, Occup. Agril.,
R/o. Rampur, Ta. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
8] Sandhya Satyawan Gadge,
Age: 31 years, Occup. Agril.,
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 03:14:16 :::
4116.20WP.odt
2
R/o. Loni, Tq. Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.
9] Ramesh Rangnath Pathare,
Age: 51 years, Occup. Agril.,
R/o. Kolhar [KD], Tq. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
10] Pramila Sachin Tajane,
Age: Major, Occup. Household,
R/o. Shekaiwadi, Tal. Akole,
District Ahmednagar.
11] Latabai Nandkishor Shirsath,
Age: Major, Occup. Household,
R/o. Kolhar [KD], Tq. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
12] Sumanbai Bhausaheb Pathare,
Age: Major, Occup. Household,
R/o. Rahuri Bk., Ta. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
13] Anil Bhausaheb Pathare,
Age: Major, Occup. Agril.,
R/o. Rahuri Bk, Ta. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
14] Surekha Balasaheb Pathare,
Age Major, Occup. Household,
R/o. Rahuri Bk, Ta. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Assistant Director of
Town Planning, Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 03:14:16 :::
4116.20WP.odt
3
3] The Municipal Council,
Rahuri, Ta.Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
Through its Chief Officer ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Vijay B.Jagtap, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Ms.V.N.Patil-Jadhav, AGP for the respondent-
State.
Mr.R.N.Naiknaware, Advocate for respondent
no.3.
...
CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI,JJ.
DATE : 16.03.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.]
1] Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. With the consent of the parties
taken up for final hearing.
2] The land bearing Survey No.427 of
the petitioner is reserved for weekly market
and, Primary and Secondary School as site
Nos.17 and 18 in the revised development
sanction plan on 31.03.2003. The petitioners
issued notice under Section 127 of The
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966, [for short 'MRTP Act'] on or about 5 th
June, 2014. It is received by the Municipal
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 03:14:16 :::
4116.20WP.odt
4
Council on the same day. The contention of
the petitioners is that no steps for
acquisition were initiated within period
stipulated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act,
the land stands released from reservation.
3] Mr.Naiknaware, learned counsel for
the Municipal Council submits that even
before receipt of the notice, the respondent
no.3 had forwarded the proposal for
acquisition of the writ land. But, the State
Government has not taken further steps.
4] We have heard learned AGP also.
5] The aforesaid factual matrix that
the land of the petitioners bearing Survey
No.427 is reserved as Site No.17 for weekly
market and for Primary and Secondary School
as Site No.18, is not disputed. Receipt of
notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on
5th June, 2014, by the Municipal Council is
also accepted by the Municipal Council.
6] It is admitted that the declaration
under Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and /
or Section 19 of the Right to Fair
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 03:14:16 :::
4116.20WP.odt
5
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, is not issued till date.
7] Section 127 of the MRTP Act, acts as
fetters on the powers of eminent domain.
8] The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others reported in 2011 [3] SCC 1 has
held that steps for acquisition would mean
issuing of declaration under Section 126 of
the MRTP Act r/w. Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
9] In the light of the fact that no
steps for acquisition are initiated as yet
and the notice has been issued more than 6
years back, the lands stand de-reserved from
acquisition.
10] In the light of above, we pass the
following order :
ORDER
i] The land of the petitioners stands
de-reserved.
4116.20WP.odt
ii] The Notification to that effect be
issued by the State.
iii] Rule made absolute in above terms.
No costs.
[SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]
DDC
