Prashant S/O Natthuji Talmale vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9449 Bom

                              1

                                           19-9-2022-wp-5314-2022.odt

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

                   Writ Petition No.5314 of 2022

Prashant S/o Natthuji Talmale,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation - Agriculture,
R/o 10, Deo Nagar,
Khamla, Nagpur.                                        ... Petitioner

     Versus

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

2. Municipal Council, Katol,
   Through its Chief Officer,
   Katol, District- Nagpur.                            ... Respondents


Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Respondent No.2.


              CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & G.A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE : 19th SEPTEMBER, 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, Katol

19-9-2022-wp-5314-2022.odt

as subject No.2 on 19-4-2021 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 Shopping Complex

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.2/2021 which is at page 34.

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.

(G.A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) Lanjewar

Digitally Signed By :P D LANJEWAR Signing Date:20.09.2022 13:59