Nabega Yusufzai Farooque Mohd ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12324 Bom

                                       .. 1 ..

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         959 Writ Petition No.1064 Of 2021


Nabega Yusufzai Farooque Mohd Khan
Age : 47 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. House No.3-11-61, Bukkalguda,
Darga Nizammuddin Road,
Aurangabad                                                  .. Petitioner

          Versus

1.        The State of Maharashtra
          Through the Secretary
          Ministry of Urban Development
          Mantralaya, Mumbai

2.        The Director of Town Planning Department,
          Maharashtra State,
          Pune

3.        Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
          Through its Municipal Commissioner,
          Aurangabad

4.        Assistant Director of Town Planning,
          Municipal Corporation Aurangabad,
          Aurangabad

5.        The District Collector,
          Aurangabad                                         .. Respondents
                                        ...
             Mr Devdatt P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
             Mr K.N. Lokhande, AGP for the Respondents - State
             Mr J.R. Shah, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4
                                     ...

                                     CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
                                                      AND
                                             R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

Gajanan

.. 2 ..

DATE : 01-09-2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. The land of the petitioner bearing CTS No.9816, admeasuring

360.50 sq. meters at Bakkalguda, Aurangabad is affected by

reservation of 'shopping centre' as reservation site no.30 in the

development plan. The said development plan came into effect on

17-08-2002. The petitioner issued notice under Section 127 of the

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short, 'MRTP

Act') on or about 05-04-2017. On or about 28.08.2017, the planning

authority demanded toach map, measurement map and search

report. The reply was given that the said documents are already

submitted.

3. Mr Palodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

within two years from the date of service of notice, the writ land has

not been acquired and, therefore, the reservation stands lapsed.

4. Mr Shah, learned Advocate for the Municipal Corporation

submits that the title was not clear. The name of the petitioner was

Gajanan

.. 3 ..

mutated referable to the Will Deed. As the title is not clear, the

period of two years would not commence.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Will

Deed was a misnomer in the revenue record. The same was the date

of the Death Certificate. It is clarified in the rejoinder affidavit.

6. It appears that the title of the petitioner is not disputed. It is

also not disputed that the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act

issued by the petitioner is served upon the planning authority. It is

further not disputed by the planning authority that the declaration

under Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 19 of the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, Act, 2013) is not issued till date.

7. Mr Shah, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that the

Corporation is ready to offer Reservation Occupancy Certificate. The

learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is not

acceptable to the petitioner.

8. As the steps for acquisition are not initiated by issuing

declaration under Section 126 of MRTP Act read with Section 19 of

Gajanan

.. 4 ..

the 2013 Act, the reservation stands lapsed.

9. The petitioner can use the land in a manner the adjacent land

is permissible. The Government may issue notification under Section

127 (2) of the MRTP Act preferably within six months.

10. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs.

      [ R.N. LADDHA ]                         [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
          JUDGE                                        JUDGE
                                     ...




Gajanan