Sanjaykumar Biharilal Bangad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1134 Bom

                                                                     WP-943-2021.odt



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.943 OF 2021

Sanjaykumar s/o Biharilal Bangad,
Age-60 years, Occu. Agril. & Business,
R/o. Main Road, Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani.                                     ...Petitioner

         Versus

1.       The State of Maharashtra
         Through: The Secretary,
         Urban Development Department,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.     The Municipal Council, Manwat,
       Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani,
       Through its Chief Officer.                     ...Respondents
                                  ...

Mr. Manish P. Tripathi h/f Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

...

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

RESERVED ON : 27th JANUARY, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 01st FEBRUARY, 2022

JUDGMENT (PER S.G. MEHARE, J.) :-

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

parties, heard finally.

2. Petitioner has the ancestral field Gat No. 372 at village Manwat.

The land measuring 3 H 30 R out of the said field was reserved for

WP-943-2021.odt

Civic Centre and Stadium under Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act 1966 ('MRTP Act' for short) by revised Development

Plan dated 30.08.2002. In 2015, the petitioner had consented to

acquire his field in favour of respondent no.2. The petitioner and

respondent no.2 had executed a consent deed on 23.03.2015,

however, no steps were taken by respondent no.2 to purchase the

land and it has shown inability to purchase his land. The petitioner

accordingly served a notice under section 127 of the Act dated

28.09.2018 which the Respondent no.2 received on the same day.

The statutory period of 2 years to acquire the land after the notice

under section 127 of the MRTP Act has also lapsed, but no steps to

acquire the land as provided under the said section have been taken

by respondent no.2. Hence, his land is liable to be released from the

reservation. Hence this petition.

3. The contesting respondent no.2, through its Chief Officer, in its

affidavit in reply has, admitted the material facts of reservation of the

land and service of the purchase notice by the petitioner. Respondent

no.2 had immediately forwarded the notice issued by the petitioner to

the President of Municipal Council Manwat for necessary action.

However, the President endorsed that as the financial position of the

Council is not good, therefore same will be considered in future. He

has fairly conceded that yet no steps have been taken to acquire the

WP-943-2021.odt

petitioner's land.

4. Section 127 of the MRTP Act provides for lapsing of reservation

of the land when the Planning Authority fails to acquire or to take

steps to acquire the reserved land within twenty-four months from the

date of service of the notice by the landowner or the person having an

interest in the reserved land. Failing to acquire or take the steps as

provided in the said section, the reservation, allotment, or designation

shall be deemed to have been lapsed and thereupon, the land shall be

deemed to be released from such reservation.

5. Frequently, the question that arises for consideration in such

petitions is, when it is said to have taken steps to acquire the reserved

land? Herein the case, whether the decision of the President of the

Municipal Council, that the financial position of the Council is not

good, therefore, same will be considered in future is a step to acquire

the field of the petitioner is the question to be answered.

6. When would the step to acquire the land following the

procedure laid in the Land Acquisition Act commence, the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Girnar Traders (II) vs. State of Maharashtra

& others, (2007) 7 SCC 555, has answered that the steps towards the

acquisition would really commence when the State Government take

active steps for the acquisition of a particular piece of land which

would lead to the publication of the declaration under section 6 of the

WP-943-2021.odt

Land Acquisition Act 1894. Before the purchase notice, the petitioner

had executed the consent deed on 23.03.2015 in favour of respondent

no.2, even then, it has shown inability to purchase the land of the

petitioner. Financial constraint is also not a ground to extend the

statutory period to acquire the land or take steps to acquire the land

after the notice is served under section 127 of the MRTP Act. As

respondent no. 2 has failed to comply with the purchase notice as

provided in section 127 of MRTP Act, hence by way of legal fiction as

provided therein, the reservation of the petitioner's land in the

Development Plan of Manwat Municipal Council has lapsed.

7. Given the discussion in the preceding paras, the petition

deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the reservation of the field survey no.372 of

Manwat for Civic Centre and Stadium reserved in the revised

Development Plan at site no.22 vide Notification dated 30.08.2002 is

declared lapsed and released from the reservation as mentioned

above. The said land became available to the petitioner for the

development as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land

under the said plan.

8. The State Government is directed to notify by an Order

publishing in the Official Gazette that the reservation of the above

land has lapsed from the revised Development Plan notified on

WP-943-2021.odt

30.08.2002 within two months from the date of the receipt of this

order.

9. No order as to costs.

10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

  (S.G. MEHARE. J.)                              (A.S. GADKARI, J.)




Mujaheed//