Bombay High Court
Shardul Madhusudas Shroff And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 March, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare
1 wp 2736.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2736 OF 2022
1. Shardul S/o Madhusudan Shroff,
Age : 73 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
2. Parimal S/o Madhusudan Shroff,
Age : 71 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
Both R/o Main Road, Taloda,
Tq. Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar. .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
3. The District Collector,
Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar,
Through : The Special Land
Acquisition Officer.
4. Taloda Municipal Council,
Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar,
Through its Chief Officer.
5. The Town Planning Officer,
Nandurbar. .. Respondents
Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S. P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri G. D. Jain, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
::: Uploaded on - 25/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2022 06:20:19 :::
2 wp 2736.22
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 24TH MARCH, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. D. Dhanuka, J.) :-
. Rule. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
service for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Jain, the learned counsel
waives service for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Rule made
returnable forthwith.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners have impugned the steps for declaration
that, land bearing Sy. No. 492/1 (New Sy. No. 74/1) to the extent
of 0.77R situated in the limits of Municipal Council, Taloda, Dist.
Nandurbar stands released from the reservation and it has
become available to petitioners for the purpose of development.
3. The petitioners also seek writ of mandamus against the
State of Maharashtra to notify the de-reservation of land Sy. No.
492/1 (New Sy. No. 74/1) to the extent of 0H 77R of village
Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar as described in prayer clause B since
the reservation of said land stood lapsed.
4. The petitioners are the owners of the said land. On 02 nd
December, 1965, the State Government sanctioned development
plan for Taloda Municipal Council. The same came into effect
from 01.04.1966. The property bearing Sy. No. 492/1 part to
492/6 had been reserved for construction of garden as Site No. 3.
3 wp 2736.22
On 27th December, 1979, the Municipal Council passed a
resolution to acquire the said lands for public purpose. On 30 th
August, 1971, the State Government vide notification delegated
its powers under Sub Sec. 2 and 4 of Section 126 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (for short "MRTP
Act") to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, thereafter
directed the respondent No. 3 to initiate land acquisition
proceedings. On 05th November, 1981 a notification U/Sec. 126(4)
of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
came to be published in Government Gazettee. The predecessor
in title and other land owners whose lands were affected by the
said reservation filed objection to the acquisition so also the
feasibility of the public purpose.
5. On 18th July, 2012, the Municipal Council resolved that, it
is not possible to make payment of compensation for acquisition
of lands covered by site No. 3 and particularly area adm. 2873.75
sqm. Therefore, said portion be de-reserved and the land owner
be permitted to develop the property. This Court accordingly
disposed of earlier Writ Petition No. 4210 of 2009 filed by the
land owners.
6. Sometime in the year 2019, the petitioner filed Writ
Petition No. 3822 of 2019 inter alia praying for declaration that
the land bearing Sy. No. 492/1 (New Sy. No. 74/1) to the extent of
0H 77R, which is subject matter of this petition stands released
from reservation. By judgment dated 07th February, 2020,
4 wp 2736.22
Division Bench of this Court declared that that the acquisition
pursuant to the declaration U/Sec. 6 read with Section 126 of the
MRTP Act dated 05th October, 1981 stood lapsed. It was
however, made clear that the respondents if desire to acquire
land shall initiate fresh acquisition proceedings.
7. Pursuant to the said judgment delivered by this Court, the
petitioners issued notice on 14.02.2020 to the Chief Officer,
Taloda Municipal Council U/Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act. Though
the said notice was received by the Municipal Council, Taloda on
14.02.202 itself, no steps are taken by the Municipal Council to
acquire the said land within a period of two years from the date
of receipt of said notice. The petitioners thus filed this petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention
to various documents in support of his submission that, though
the purchase notice was issued on 14.02.2020 and was received
by the respondent No. 4 on the same day, no steps were taken in
pursuance to the notice dated 14.02.2020 and thus the
acquisition of the said land under reservation stands lapsed.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 could not
dispute this position that the land was not purchased within two
years from the date of receipt of notice U/Sec. 127 of the MRTP
Act.
10. Since the respondent No. 4 could not acquire the land
5 wp 2736.22
within a period of two years from the date of receipt of notice
U/Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation in the development
plan for Municipal Council, Taloda stands lapsed.
11. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "B"
and "C". Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs.
[S. G. MEHARE, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
bsb/March 22
