Bombay High Court
Raju S/O. Jagan Gaanar And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Urban ... on 8 September, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M. W. Chandwani
2023:BHC-NAG:13362-DB
1 WP-4173-22J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4173 OF 2022
1. Raju S/o. Jagan Gannar,
Aged about 54 years, R/o. Near Namdeo
Maharaj Math, Kawarapeth, Umred,
Tahsil: Umred, District: Nagpur.
2. Krushnaji S/o. Sukhdev Gaanar,
Aged about 59 years, R/o. Near Durga
Mata Mandir, Kawarapeth, Umred,
Tahsil: Umred, District: Nagpur.
3. Vijay S/o. Jagan Gaanar,
Aged about 45 years, R/o. C/o.
Rameshwarji Peshne, Near Bus Stand,
Ward No. 2, At & Post Selu, Wardha.
4. Zhiblabai Wd/o. Jagan Gaanar,
Aged about 80 years, R/o. Near Namdeo
Baba Mandir, Kawarapeth, Umred,
Tahsil: Umred, District: Nagpur.
5. Ramesh S/o. Sukhdeo Gaanar,
Aged about 65 years, R/o. Near Durga
Mata Mandir, Kawarapeth, Umred,
Tahsil: Umred, District : Nagpur.
6. Rajendra Pundalik Gaanar,
Aged about 47 years, R/o. Near Namdeo
Maharaj Math, Kawrapeth, Umred,
Tahsil: Umred, District: Nagpur. . . . PETITIONERS
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Urban Development Department through
its Principal Secretary, having office
at Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
2 WP-4173-22J.odt
2. Assistant Director, Town Planning,
Nagpur having office at:- Administrative
Building No. 1, Second Floor,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Assistant Town Planner, Town Planning,
Nagpur Address:- Administrative Building
No. 1, Second Floor, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. Umred Municipal Council through its
Chief Officer, Address:- Budhwari Peth,
Umred, Maharashtra-441203. . . . RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H. R. Gadhiya, Advocate for petitioners.
Ms. T. H. Khan, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Shri M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent no. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- 19.08.2023
PRONOUNCED ON :- 08.09.2023
JUDGMENT (PER: M. W. CHANDWANI, J.):-
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the
parties.
3. This petition invokes deeming fiction of lapsing of the
reservation of the land of the petitioners under Section 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, "MRTP Act").
3 WP-4173-22J.odt
4. The petitioners are owners of the land bearing Survey/Gat
Nos. 594, 597, 598, 599 and 600, Patwari Halka No. 46 of Mouza
Umred, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur (for short, "the said lands"). The
Development Plan of respondent no. 4 for the city of Umred, Tahsil
Umred, District Nagpur was sanctioned on 08.07.2003 and came into
force on 25.08.2003. The said lands of the petitioners were reserved
for Garden, Shopping Centre and Cultural Centre in the Development
Plan of the city of Umred. Respondent no. 4, who is planning authority
for the city of Umred, did not take any steps for developing the said
land for 10 years. On 07.02.2020, the petitioners served purchase
notice to respondent no. 4 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act
alongwith all necessary documents. Though, respondent no. 4 resolved
to acquire the said lands of the petitioners and even forwarded the
proposal to the Collector, Nagpur for acquiring the said lands, but no
further steps were taken towards acquisition of the said land of the
petitioners. Hence, this petition for declaration and deeming fiction of
lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
respondents. Gone through the record as well as reply of respondent
no. 4- Municipal Council.
4 WP-4173-22J.odt
6. Indisputably, the final Development Plan of the city of
Umred proposed by respondent no. 4 was published on 08.07.2003.
For 10 years, respondent no. 4 did not take any steps for developing the
said lands of the petitioners, which was reserved for Garden, Shopping
Centre and Cultural Centre under Reservation nos. 11, 12 and 13. The
service of purchase notice on 07.02.2020 to respondent no. 4 is an
admitted fact. Though, respondent no. 4 sent a proposal to the
Collector for acquisition of the said lands of the petitioners, no further
steps have been taken.
7. In this regard the law is settled by the various
pronouncements of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court. In the
case of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 7 SCC 555] , the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"57. It may also be noted that the legislature while enacting
Section 127 has deliberately used the word "steps" (in plural and
not in singular) which are required to be taken for acquisition of
the land. On construction of Section 126 which provides for
acquisition of the land under the MRTP Act, it is apparent that
the steps for acquisition of the land would be issuance of the
declaration under section 6 of the LA Act. Clause (c) of Section
126 (1) merely provides for a mode by which the State
Government can be requested for the acquisition of the land
under section 6 of the LA Act. The making of an application to
the State Government for acquisition of the land would not be a
step for acquisition of the land under reservation. Sub-section
(2) of section 126 leaves it open to the State Government either
to permit the acquisition or not to permit, considering the public
purpose for which the acquisition is sought for by the authorities.
Thus the step towards acquisition would really commence when
the State Government permits the acquisition and as a result
thereof publishes the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act."
5 WP-4173-22J.odt
8. In view of the settled law that mere sending of proposal to
the Land Acquisition Authority does not amount to taking up steps for
acquisition of land, and since, the statutory period of 24 months, as
envisaged under Section 127 of the MRTP Act from the date of purchase
notice, is already lapsed and no steps for acquisition of the land is taken
by respondent no. 4, therefore deeming fiction of lapsing of reservation
on the said land of the petitioner has to follow.
9. The learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that
the measurement map was not supplied by the petitioners alongwith
the purchase notice and it was supplied on 28.07.2020 and therefore,
the period of 24 months will be counted from 28.07.2020 but the
present petition has been filed before the expiry of 24 months from
28.07.2020.
10. It is pertinent to note here that in view of the decision in
the cases of Anil Mohanlal Vyas Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Writ
Petition No. 4498/2019, decided on 23.01.2020) and Jaika Vanijye Ltd.
Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 1 All MR 136] , wherein this Court
negatived the demand of measurement map alongwith the purchase
notice by holding that it is not a requirement under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act, we do not find force in the argument of the learned counsel
for respondent no. 4. We also do not find force in the argument of
6 WP-4173-22J.odt
learned counsel for respondent no. 4 that 7/12 extract, which was
annexed with the notice, is not a document showing interest in the
land.
11. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the Writ
Petition and pass the following order:-
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) It is declared that the Reservation nos. 11, 12 and 13 for
Garden, Shopping Centre and Cultural Centre over the lands of the
petitioners bearing Survey/Gat nos. 594, 597, 598, 599 and 600,
Patwari Halka No. 46 of Mouza Umred, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur
stands lapsed and the petitioners are free to develop the said land
owned by them in the manner permissible to the adjacent land as per
the Development Plan of city of Umred.
iii) The respondents are directed to notify and publish the
same in the official gazette within eight weeks from the date of receipt
of the copy of the judgment.
iv) Rule accordingly. No costs.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
RR Jaiswal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/09/2023 15:01:01
