Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Pramila Babulalji Thakur And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1467 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1467 Bom
Judgement Date : 11 February, 2022

Bombay High Court
Pramila Babulalji Thakur And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 11 February, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
Judgment                            1               W.P.No.751.2022.odt



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 751 OF 2022


1)   Pramila Babulalji Thakur,
     Aged about 73 years,
     Occu. - Agriculturist,
     R/o. Main Road, Katol,
     Near Railway Station, Katol,
     District Nagpur.

2)   Mohan Shankarrao Waindeshkar,
     Aged about 43 years,
     Occu. - Agriculturist & Business,
     R/o. Fail Pura, Ganesh Mandir,
     Behind Gorakshan, Katol,
     District Nagpur.

3)   Sukumar S/o. Prabhakarrao Ghode,
     Aged about 53 years,
     Occu.- Agriculturist and Business,
     R/o. Nehru Bazar, Katol,
     District Nagpur.

4)   Bhushan S/o. Prabhakarrao Ghode,
     Aged about 55 years,
     Occu.- Agriculturist and Business,
     R/o. Nehru Bazar, Katol,
     District Nagpur.

5)   Suresh S/o. Shrawan Charde,
     Aged about 69 years,
     Occu.- Agriculturist and Business,
     R/o. Near Dhantoli Park, Katol,
     District Nagpur.

6)   Kamal S/o Mulchand Kapuriya,
     Aged about 53 years,
     Occu.- Agriculturist and Business,
     R/o. 108,, Shridhar Apartment,
     Shriram Mandir Galli, Nagpur.
                                                 .... PETITIONERS
 Judgment                             2                 W.P.No.751.2022.odt



                             // VERSUS //

1)    State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Principal Secretary,
      Urban Development Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2)    Municipal Council, Katol
      Through its Chief Officer, Katol,
      District - Nagpur.
                                             .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
     Shri M. P. Khajanchi, Advocate for petitioners.
     Shri N. R. Rode, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
     Shri M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent No.2.
______________________________________________________________


                  CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                          ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED : 11.02.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and

all the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality was

proper.

2. Heard Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Shri N. R. Rode, learned A.G.P. who appears by waiving notice for

respondent No.1 and Shri M. I. Dhatrak, learned counsel who appears

by waiving notice for respondent No.2.

Judgment 3 W.P.No.751.2022.odt

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. The reply filed by respondent No.2-Municipal Council,

Katol is categorical. In paragraph No.3, it is stated that the issue in

question was taken up in the General Body meeting of the Municipal

Council, Katol as subject No.7 on 28.01.2022 and in this meeting, after

discussion, it was unanimously resolved that the subject land which is

currently reserved for the purpose of play ground should not be

acquired and this fact should be intimated to the land-owner. This reply

is well-supported by copy of the Resolution bearing No.7/2022 which

is at page No.57.

5. It is, thus, clear that the subject land is not proposed to be

acquired by the Municipal Council-respondent No.2, under Section 126

of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short

the "MRTP Act"). Besides, there is no dispute about receipt of notice by

respondent No.2 which is a purchase notice by respondent No.2, under

Section 127 of the MRTP Act. These facts would entail this Court to

allow this petition by issuing necessary directions.

6. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a)

and (b). We direct that lapsing of the land shall be published Judgment 4 W.P.No.751.2022.odt

accordingly by seeking necessary approvals within three months from

the date of this order.

Rule in above terms. No costs.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

Kirtak

Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK BHIMRAO JANARDHAN Signing Date:11.02.2022 16:10

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter