Latish Daulatrao Rewatkar And ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Principal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10834 Bom

                                                                                              wp6223.2022
                                                       1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                               WRIT PETITION NO.6223/2022

1.       Latish Daulatrao Rewatkar,
         aged about 37 years, occu: Agriculturist.
2.       Ulhas Daulatrao Rewatkar,
         aged about 35 years, occu : Agriculturist.
3.       Smt. Vijaya Daulatrao Rewatkar,
         aged about 68 Yrs., occu : Agriculturist.
         All 1 to 3 R/o Chandika Gate,
         Dodkipura, Katol, Dist. Nagpur.                                              ..PETITIONERS
                                      versus
1)     State of Maharashtra
       Through its Principal Secretary
       Urban Development Department
       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2)     Municipal Council, Katol
       Through its Chief Officer,
       Katol, Dist. Nagpur.                                                       ..RESPONDENTS
..................................................................................................................

Mr Kaustubh J. Topale, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.M. Deshpande, In-charge Government Pleader for respondent no.1. Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent no.2. ................................................................................................................

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATED : 17.10.2022.

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

wp6223.2022

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, Katol as

subject No.23 on 17.2.2021 and in this meeting, after discussion, it was

unanimously resolved that the subject land which is currently reserved

for the purpose of garden and play ground should not be acquired and

this fact should be intimated to the land-owners. This reply is well-

supported by copy of the Resolution bearing No.23/2021 which is at

page 21.

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
Tambaskar.