Bombay High Court
Municipal Council Rahuri Through ... vs Kusum Dashrath Unde And Another on 19 March, 2021
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, M. G. Sewlikar
904-ca-8226-2019.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8226 OF 2019
IN WP/6057/2016
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAHURI THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER
AHMEDNAGAR
VERSUS
KUSUM DASHRATH UNDE AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Naiknavare Ramesh V.
AGP for Respondents : Mrs. V.S. Choudhari
...
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATED : 19 th MARCH, 2021
PER COURT:-
. Heard Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mrs. Choudhari, learned AGP for respondent no.2.
2. The applicant is the Municipal Council, Rahuri, which was
respondent no.2 in the related writ petition being Writ Petition No.6057 of
2016.
3. This application has been fled for review of judgment and
order dated 21.03.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6057 of
2016 fled by Sau. Kusum w/o Dashrath Unde. The related writ petition
was fled by the original petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents
for issuance of declaration that the reservation prescribed for public
amenities in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner in the
fnal development plan prepared for Rahuri Municipal Council should be
deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 127 of the Maharashtra
Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.
904-ca-8226-2019.odt
4. The writ petition was contested by the applicant which was
respondent no.2 by fling reply afdavit. After hearing the parties and
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar
Traders Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, this Court
allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 21.03.2017 by
making rule absolute. Relevant portion of the judgment and order dated
21.03.2017 reads as under:
"8) Since the notifcation within contemplation of Section 19 of
the Act of 2013 has not been issued, the contention of the
local authority that the steps have been taken for acquisition of
the properties belonging to the petitioners, is not acceptable.
On account of failure of the local authority to initiate the
proceedings for land acquisition within a period of 24 months
from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act, the reservation, allotment or designation in respect
of the properties belonging to the petitioners, prescribing the
fnal development plan prepared for the local authority, shall
stand lapsed. As a result of lapsing of reservation, allotment or
designation, the State Government is directed to notify the
same by an order to be published in the ofcial gazette, as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months
from today."
5. Review has been sought for on the ground that the original
petitioner was served with notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra
Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, which provides for a two year period
for giving efect to land acquisition proceedings. Before completion of that
period, the writ petition was fled. Further it is urged that dereserving the
subject land from the development plan would afect the development of
the municipal council. Therefore, it is in the public interest that the
applicant should be permitted to proceed with the development plan as
904-ca-8226-2019.odt
originally envisaged.
6. We are afraid we cannot accept the prayer of the applicant
for review of the judgment and order dated 21.03.2017 on the grounds set
forth. What the review petitioner basically seeks is rehearing of the
concluded writ petition on merit, which is not the purport and ambit of
review jurisdiction. We do not fnd any error apparent on the face of the
record or any of the conditions set forth in order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 to review the judgment and order dated
21.03.2017.
7. Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain the civil
application. Accordingly, civil application is dismissed.
[M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [UJJAL BHUYAN, J.]
Mujaheed//
