Naresh Dharamsingh Goyal vs The State Of Maharashtra,Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6626 Bom

WP 531-2022                                    1                         Judgment

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 531 OF 2022
Naresh Dharamsingh Goyal,
age 67 years, Occ. Agriculturist & Business,
R/o C/o Sanjau Lilaram Gulani,
Ward No. 11, Back Side of Bharat Rice Mill,
Near Zhulala Mandir, Mul, Tq. Mul,
District Chandrapur.
                                                                    PETITIONER
                                .....VERSUS.....
1.   The State of Maharashtra,
     Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.   The Director of Town Planning,
     State of Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune - 1.

3.   Municipal Council (M.C.)/ Nagar Parishad, Mul,
     through its Chief Officer, Tq. Mul, District Chandrapur.
                                                                 RESPONDENTS

               Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ State.
                 Shri M.V. Bute, Advocate for respondent No.3.


CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, JJ.
DATE : 13TH JULY, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)


             RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

Counsel for the parties.



2.           The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing

survey No. 144 at Tahsil - Mul, District - Chandrapur under the

development plan sanctioned by the State Government on 15/12/2001.
 WP 531-2022                                 2                      Judgment

The said land was shown to be reserved for garden.



3.          On 23/12/2019, the petitioner issued a notice under Section

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

"the said Act") calling upon the planning authority as well as the

Municipal Council - respondent No.3 to acquire the said land for the

purpose for which it was reserved. Along with the notice, 7/12 extract

and part plan was submitted to the Municipal Council. This notice has

been duly served on the Municipal Council. Since, no steps were taken for

acquiring the land in question, the present Writ Petition has been filed.



4.          The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the period

of more than ten years has now lapsed since the land in question was

shown in the development plan prepared by respondent No.1. The notice

period of 24 months has also lapsed after 23/12/2019. Since, no steps

have been taken by respondent No.3 to acquire the land in question, it is

deemed that the reservation has lapsed after a period of 24 months.



5.          The learned Counsel for respondent No.3, by relying upon the

affidavit-in-reply, submitted that the documents of title were not

submitted along with the aforesaid notice. However, on 18/03/2021, the

Municipal Council had passed a resolution stating therein that on account

of financial constraints, it would not be in a position to acquire the said
 WP 531-2022                                 3                      Judgment

land for the purpose for which it was reserved. It is also pointed out that

initially, on 13/12/2019, steps had been taken to acquire the said land in

question, but by passing subsequent resolution, it was indicated by the

Municipal Council that it would not be feasible to acquire the said land.



6.          On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on

perusing the documents on record, it is clear that the notice dated

23/12/2019 has been served on the Municipal Council. Along with that

notice, 7/12 extract and part plan of the said land was annexed. This

document indicates interest of the petitioner in the said land. Since,

notice has been duly served and the statutory period of 24 months has

now lapsed, it is clear that in the absence of any steps taken for acquiring

the said land, the deeming fiction contained in Section 127 of the said Act

would apply. As a result, on expiry of period of 24 months from service of

such notice, the reservation subjected to the said land would stand

lapsed.



7.          Accordingly, the following order is passed :



                                  ORDER

It is declared that the land bearing survey No. 144 ad

measuring 1.82 H.R. stands released from reservation, the same having WP 531-2022 4 Judgment

lapsed under Section 127 of the said Act. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall

take steps to notify the de-reservation of the aforesaid land expeditiously

and within a period of three months from today. The petitioner is free to

develop his land in accordance with the development as permitted for the

adjoining land.

8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

(URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

SUMIT

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:14.07.2022 18:13