Bombay High Court
Sarladevi Govindprasad Chandak vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:8565-DB
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
-1-
wp5456.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5456 OF 2022
Sarladevi Govindprasad Chandak .. Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
Mr. S. D. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 6th MAY, 2024.
PER COURT :
1. This is a motion for speaking to the minutes of the order
dated 16.04.2024.
2. It is pointed out that the reproduced prayer clause A
wrongly mentions number 19 instead of 10.
3. In view of the above, number 19 in paragraph No. 2(a) be
replaced by number 10.
4. Corrected order be uploaded.
( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
-2-
wp5456.22.odt
This order dated 16.04.2024 stands corrected and uploaded in view of the speaking to
the minutes order dated 06.05.2024.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 WRIT PETITION NO. 5456 OF 2022
Sarladevi Govindprasad Chandak,
Age - 65 years, Occupation - Household,
R/o 102, Sukh Sagar Apartments,
3-5-805, Hyderguda, Hyderabad-29 (TS) ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through The Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development
2. The Commissioner,
Latur Municipal Corporation,
Latur, 413512
3. The Town Planner,
Town Planning Department,
Latur Municipal Corporation,
Latur 413512 ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr S. D. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr P. K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1
Mr H. V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 16th April, 2024
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
-3-
wp5456.22.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. Since this Writ Petition pertains to tendering of the
purchase notice, the sequence of events are material, which read
thus :-
(a) The Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of
the land bearing Plot Nos.1 to 5 and 8 to 10, admeasuring
16000 sq.ft. in Survey No.41 of Village Kaneri, presently under
the Municipal Ward No. B-3, Property No.R8/135 within the
limits of Latur Municipal Corporation, Latur.
(b) On 02/01/2002, the Development Plan of Latur was
sanctioned vide a Notification under Section 31 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short
'the said Act').
(c) The Plots under Site No.170, were reserved for a Garden
in the Development Plan.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
wp5456.22.odt
(d) On 19/08/2019, the Petitioner issued a purchase notice
to the Municipal Corporation Latur, under Section 127 of the
said Act.
(e) The Corporation offered T.D.R., which was not accepted
by the Petitioner.
3. The learned Advocate for the Respondent/Municipal
Corporation has submitted that this Writ Petition cannot be
entertained since the Petitioner did not produce the proof of
ownership of the Property at issue. So also, the Petitioner did not
accept the T.D.R. Hence, he prays for heavy costs while dismissing
the Petition.
4. Both the issues raised by the Petitioner are no longer res
integra. It is well settled that, an owner or a person having interest in
the property has to tender the purchase notice under Section 127 of
the said Act. It is not disputed that the Petitioner is the owner of the
property.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
wp5456.22.odt
5. Insofar as offering of the T.D.R. is concerned, the Full
Bench of this Court has concluded in Shree Vinayak Builders and
Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2022) 4 Mh.L.J.
739 (Full Bench) : (2022) DGLS (Bom.) 2061, that offering of the
T.D.R. is not a step towards acquisition, in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others, AIR (2007) SC 3180 and Girnar Traders
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 3 SCC 1. As such, it
is obvious that, on the one hand, offering of the T.D.R. is not
accepted as a step towards acquisition as held in Girnar Traders
(supra), and on the other hand, in 24 months, the Authorities have
not made any attempt to acquire the land.
6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed.
Respondent No.2/Commissioner, Latur Municipal Corporation shall
indicate to Respondent No.1, within 30 days that, the reservation of
the land under Site No.170 of the Development Plan, stands lapsed
and is released from the reservation. Respondent No.1 would issue
the appropriate Notification within 90 days, under Section 127(2) of
the said Act, thereby notifying that the land of the Petitioner is
released from reservation.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
wp5456.22.odt
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
