Bombay High Court
Mayadevi Sanjankumar Agrawal And ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. The Secretary ... on 11 October, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
(1) wp244.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.244/2022
Mayadevi Sajankumar Agrawal & Ors. .vs. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. G. K. Mundhada, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. K. L, Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for respondent no.1.
Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 11.10.2022
Learned counsel for the petitioners, after
having granted him lengthy hearing, now seeks time,
when confronted with the queries made by this Court.
2. Time is sought by him for the purpose of
citing some judgments which, according to him, clarify
the position as to which document could be considered
as a document showing title or interest.
3. In the opinion of learned counsel for the
petitioners, if photostat copy of 7/12 extract is
submitted along with notice under Section 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, it
should be regarded as a document showing interest of
the owners in the subject land. In other words, the
(2) wp244.22
learned counsel for the petitioners is seeking time to
place on record some judgments, which would support
his contention that in a given case, even the photostat
copy of the document would be sufficient to reach a
conclusion that the owner has successfully met the
conditions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
4. Of course, prima facie, in our opinion,
photostat copy of a document showing title or interest
in the land is not enough and it should either be an
original document or a properly attested document,
which should accompany the notice under Section
Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that all this is not required because there is an
admission of ownership of the subject land by all the
petitioners by the Akola Municipal Corporation.
6. However, Dr. De, learned counsel for the
respondent nos.2 and 3-Akola Municipal Corporation,
denies that there is any admission of ownership on the
part of the Corporation.
7. Even otherwise, we would say, all the
requirements of Section 127 of the MRTP Act must be
fulfilled by owner. Therefore, if a notice is issued for
purchase of the property in question, it must comply
(3) wp244.22
with all the conditions of such a notice and the
manner in which the notice is required to be issued.
8. After all, whenever there is a law
prescribing the procedure, the procedure must be
followed. Otherwise, no advantage of the law can be
given to a person placing reliance upon such a law, in
order to derive benefits therefrom. This is a well
settled law by Privy Council in the case of Nazir
Ahmad Vs. King-Emperor1
Stand over after six weeks.
(Anil L. Pansare, J.) (Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
kahale
Digitally signed byYOGESH
ARVIND KAHALE
1 AIR 1936 Privy Council 253 (2) Signing Date:11.10.2022
19:40
