Bombay High Court
Nine Star Multiservices Pvt. Ltd. Thr. ... vs The State Of Maha., Thr. The Secretary, ... on 25 September, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-NAG:10856-DB
-- 1 -- Judgment WP 1983.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1983 OF 2024
Nine Star Multiservices Pvt. Ltd. through
its Director Shankar Gokulprasad Agrawal
Age - 45 years R/o Civil Lines, Chandrapur .. Petitioner
Tq & Dist. Chandrapur
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary, Urban Development
Department, State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
.. Respondents
2. The Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority (MHADA), through
its Chief Officer, Civil Line, Temple Road,
Rajarani Chowk, Near Aamdar Nivas,
Nagpur
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. G.K.Mundhada, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. N.S.Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Mr. A.R.Fule, Advocate for respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : 25/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally,
with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2) The petitioner is seeking relief of declaration of lapsing of
Reservation Nos.68 (Shopping Centre), 69 (Cultural Centre & Library),
PAGE 1 OF 5
-- 2 -- Judgment WP 1983.2024.odt
and 70 (Primary School) affecting the lands bearing Survey Nos.105/1
and 105/2, 108/3A, and 110/2A, respective area of which are
mentioned in the petition, of Village Khutala Tq. and District
Chandrapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'said land'), and it is free to
develop the lands in the manner permissible to the adjacent lands as
per the Regional Development Plan of Chandrapur.
(3) The respondent No.1 vide notification No.TPS-
2294/471/CR-159/UD-9 dated 30/06/1998 has reserved the piece of
the lands for the Shopping Centre, Cultural Centre and Library, and
Primary School vide reservation Nos.68, 69 and 70, respectively, which
came into force after its sanction on 01/09/1998. Despite said
notification, respondent No.2 failed to acquire the said lands till
December 2020. Therefore, the petitioner, on 01/01/2021, issued a
purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "M.R.T.P. Act")
to respondent No.2, thereby calling upon them to acquire the said
lands which are affected by the reservation Nos.68, 69 and 70
respectively within the statutory period of two years from the date of
service of the notice. Despite the service of the said notice, respondent
No.2 failed to comply or acquire the lands in question within the
statutory period of two years. Hence, this petition.
(4) Respondent No.2 filed a reply, but it has not disputed the
PAGE 2 OF 5
-- 3 -- Judgment WP 1983.2024.odt
facts stated by the petitioner. However, it is averred that it could not
initiate the acquisition process or compensate the Petitioner because
the funds were not received to acquire lands. Hence, it urges to dismiss
the petition.
(5) Mr. Mundhada, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
vehemently contended that despite service of the purchase notice,
respondent No.2 has not complied with the notice nor acquired the
lands in question within the statutory period of two years, which was
completed on 31/12/2022. He has drawn our attention to the averment
in the reply, which depicts that due to the non-receipt of the funds for
acquisition, it was unable to acquire the said lands. Hence, he urged
the petition to be allowed.
(6) As against above, Mr. Rao, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, submitted that MHADA could not respond to the
petitioner's notice within the statutory period due to the non-receipt of
funds from the Government. The act was neither deliberate nor willful
negligence on the part of respondent No.2, but it could not comply due
to financial constraints. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the
relief as claimed. Hence, he urged for the dismissal of the petition.
(7) We have appreciated the rival submissions of the parties
and perused the record.
PAGE 3 OF 5
-- 4 -- Judgment WP 1983.2024.odt
(8) It is apparent that the petitioner is the owner of the lands
in question. Vide notification dated 30/06/1998, respondent No.1
sanctioned and reserved the pieces of the lands for the Shopping
Centre, Cultural Center & Library, and Primary School vide reservations
Nos.68, 69 and 70, respectively. However, till December 2022,
respondent No.2 failed to acquire the said lands. Therefore, the
petitioner issued a purchase notice to respondent No.2 on 01/01/2021,
which was served on them. Despite service of the said notice,
respondent No.2 failed to comply with the same or acquire the pieces
of the lands in question. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2
has not disputed the above facts. However, it is averred that due to the
non-receipt of funds from the government, MHADA could not acquire
the lands, or it was unable to initiate the acquisition proceedings within
the statutory period. The averment shows that respondent No.2 failed
to comply with the notice.
(9) Thus, considering the above discussion, it is evident that
despite the service of purchase notice under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P.
Act, the respondents failed to comply with said notice or acquire the
pieces of the lands in question. On the contrary, it seems that they are
unable to initiate the acquisition proceedings due to financial
constraints. Hence, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to the relief
as claimed.
PAGE 4 OF 5
-- 5 -- Judgment WP 1983.2024.odt
(10) As such, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (A) and (B).
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [ BHARATI DANGRE J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 5 OF 5
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/09/2024 15:45:49
