Bombay High Court
Geeta Pravinchandra Khatri And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 7 September, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
2023:BHC-NAG:13386-DB
WP 2096-23 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2096/2023
1. Geeta Pravindchandra Khatri,
Age-63 years, Occupation: Housewife.
2. Jayant Pravinchandra Khatri,
Age-41 years, Occupation: Advocate.
Both r/o 13, Patel Nagar, Sai Nagar,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati - 444 607. PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal
Secretary (UD-1), Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra,
Directorate of Town Planning and Valuation Dept.
Ground Floor, Central Administrative Building,
Agarkar Nagar, Pune - 411 001.
3. The Municipal Corporation of City of Amravati,
Through its Commissioner, Amravati Municipal
Corporation, Rajkamal Chowk, Amravati-444601.
4. Assistant Director of Town Planning, Municipal
Corporation, Amravati, Municipal Corporation,
Rajkamal Chowk, Amravati-444601. RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________________________
The petitioner no.2 in person.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
WP 2096-23 2 Judgment
2. The land to the extent of 9715 Square Meters of Mouza
Rahatgaon, Tahsil and District Amravati was subjected to reservation in
the final development plan of the city of Amravati that was published
on 04.12.1992. The petitioners had issued notice under Section 127 of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the
Act of 1966') seeking a declaration as regards lapsing of the said
reservation on the ground that no steps were taken by the Municipal
Corporation for acquiring the same within a period of ten years from
the publication of the final development plan. Writ Petition No.4416
of 2015 [Geeta Pravinchandra Khatri & Another Versus State of
Maharashtra & Others] was allowed by the judgment dated
14.12.2015 by this Court and a declaration as regards lapsing of the
reservation came to be issued. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it is the
grievance of the petitioners that in the revised development plan the
said land is again shown to be reserved for Public Amenities and
Playground vide Reservation Nos.49 and 50.
3. The petitioner no.2 in person submits that a similar issue was
considered in Writ Petition Nos.745 of 2020 [Vidyadevi Hemantkumar
Vyas Versus State of Maharashtra & Others] and 746 of 2020 [Kiran
Prashant Vyas Versus State of Maharashtra & Others ]. These lands
were part of the same survey number and a declaration as regards
lapsing was issued in the earlier litigation. It was held that in view of
WP 2096-23 3 Judgment
the lapsing of the said reservation the lands could not have been
shown to be reserved in the revised development plan.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation
does not dispute the fact that the aforesaid adjudication pertains to the
other lands from the same survey number wherein the reservation was
declared to have lapsed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record it appears that the very same issue
that arose in the aforesaid writ petitions also arises for consideration
herein. This Court had held that it was not permissible for the
Municipal Corporation to refuse permission for development on such
ground. In view of aforesaid, for the reasons assigned in Vidyadevi
Hemantkumar Vyas and Kiran Prashant Vyas (supra), the following
order is passed:-
(A) The communications dated 08.06.2022 issued by the Municipal
Corporation are set aside. The Municipal Corporation shall
consider the petitioners' application afresh in accordance with
law and take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks of
receiving the copy of this judgment without awaiting the
issuance of formal notification by the respondent no.1.
WP 2096-23 4 Judgment
(B) The respondent no.1 shall take necessary steps to publish the
notification in terms of the judgment of this Court in Geeta
Pravinchandra Khatri & Another (supra) within a period
of eight weeks from today.
6. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid
terms. No costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/09/2023 18:52:01
