Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1467 Bom
Judgement Date : 11 February, 2022
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
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!