Narendra S/O. Dharnidhar Gandhi vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1105 Bom

                                                                                                 WP.35.22.J
                                                       1

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 35/2022

* Narendra s/o Dharnidhar Gandhi Aged about 56 years, occu: Business R/o 40, Balaji Nagar, Nagpur. ..PETITIONER

versus

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

2)     The Municipal Council, Katol
       Through its Chief Officer,
       Katol,Dist.Nagpur.                                                   ..        RESPONDENTS

..................................................................................................................

Mr M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for petitioner Ms.Sangeeta Jachak, Asst.Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1 Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent no.2 ................................................................................................................

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATED : 31st January, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.)

1. Heard.

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

consent.

3. The reply filed by respondent no.2-Municipal Council, Katol

is categorical. In Paragraph 3, it is stated that the issue in question

was taken up in the General Body meeting of the Municipal Council, WP.35.22.J

Katol as subject No.12 on 19.03.2021 and in this meeting, after

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

currently reserved for the purposes of Primary School and Secondary

School 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.12/2021 which is at page 33.

4. 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. Besides, there is

no dispute about receipt of notice by respondent no.2 which is a

purchase notice by respondent no.2, u/s. 127 of the MRTP Act. These

facts would entail this Court to allow this petition by issuing necessary

directions.

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

& (b). We direct that lapsing of the land shall be published accordingly

by seeking necessary approvals within three months from the date of

this order.

6. Rule in above terms. No costs.

                   JUDGE                            JUDGE

sahare

                                                            Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA
                                                            BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE
                                                            Location:
                                                            Signing Date:31.01.2022 15:28