Bombay High Court
Vasant Govind Khadke vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
SMO 1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12799 OF 2023
AND WP/8845/2023
Vasant Govind Khadke ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
...
Mr. G. V. Wani, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP, for the Respondents/State
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ
DATE : MAY 07, 2024
PER COURT :
1. This is a motion for speaking to the minutes
of the order dated 03rd April, 2024.
2. Correction in line no. 4 of paragraph no. 2 to
the extent of the date, is required. The date should
read as "10th August, 2004"
3. Correction be carried out and the corrected
order be uploaded.
(R. M. JOSHI, J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)
Malani
Page 1 of 4
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
SMO 1.odt
(This order dated 03.04.2024 stands corrected and uploaded in
view of the order dated 07.05.2024 passed on motion for Speaking
to the Minutes of the Order)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8845 OF 2023
Ashabai Abhimanyu Patil
age 67 years, occ. Household
r/o Pimprala, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon .. Petitioner
versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 12799 OF 2023
Vasant Govind Khadke
age 87 years, occ. Nil.
r/o 202, Bhavani Peth, Jalgaon
Tq. & Dist. Jalagaon. .. Petitioner
versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Director of Town Planning
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Assistant Director of Town Planning
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon
4. The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondents
Page 2 of 4
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
SMO 1.odt
Mr. G. V. Wani, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. V. M. Kagne, Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGPs for the State.
Mr. M. V. Navandar, Advocate for Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 3rd APRIL, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard finally by the consent
of the parties.
2. We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for
the respective sides and have perused the Petition paper book and
affidavit-in-rely filed by the Corporation. The facts of the case are
undisputed. On 10th August, 2004, a reservation for composed Depot in
Sanction Development Plan (DPR-195) was announced. The development
plan came into existence on the said date. Since no development took
place and there was no actual acquisition, the Petitioners issued a
purchase notice on 7th September, 2018. The learned Advocate for the
Corporation submits that in Writ Petition No. 8845/2023, there was no
response by the Corporation. In Writ Petition No. 12799/2023, the
Corporation tendered it's reply and offered the TDR. The Petitioner
refused to accept the TDR.
3. The law on taking steps within 1 year (as the provision earlier
stood) and 2 years (as the provision stands amended), is settled in the
case of Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2007) 7 SCC
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
SMO 1.odt
555. The law on offering of TDR and refusal to accept, is also settled in
the case of Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, 2022(4) Mh.L.J. 739. Offering of TDR is not a
step towards acquisition, in view of the judgment in the case of Shree
Vinayak Builders (supra).
4. In view of the above, both these Writ Petitions are allowed.
The Corporation is directed to issue a communication to Respondent No.
1 intimating that the lands are released from reservation, within 30 days
from today. Respondent No. 1 would thereafter issue appropriate
notification in both these cases declaring that reservation is lapsed,
under Section127(2) Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, within 90
days.
5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
JUDGE JUDGE
