[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nandkumar Tukaram Hajare And Anr vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ... on 4 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:53270-DB
Digitally signed
ARUNA by ARUNA
SANDEEP
SANDEEP TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR 913.WP2957.2024.odt
Date: 2025.12.05
15:40:40 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2957 OF 2024
1. Mr. Nandkumar Tukaram Hajare
Age: 72 7ears, Occupation- Agriculture,
2. Mr. Tushar Ramdas Hajare
Age : 36 years, Occupation- Agriculture &
business.
Both Residing at - Haraje Sadan,
Bombay-Pune Road,
Dapodi, Pune 411 012. ... Petitioners.
V/s.
1. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation, A body corporate
established under the provisions
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act
through the Municipal Commissioner
Add-PCMC Building, Morewadi, Pimpri,
Pune-411018.
2. The Deputy Director,
Town Planning,
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Morewadi, Pimpri, Pune-411018.
3. The State of Maharashtra
through it's Secretary for Urban
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400032. ... Respondents.
---
Mr. P.S. Dani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni, Advocate
for Petitioners.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mrs. Nisha Mehra, AGP for
Respondent/State.
Mr. Deepak R. More,
Talwalkar 1
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:53 :::
913.WP2957.2024.odt
---
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 4th DECEMBER, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and
(d), as under :
"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order
thereby holding & declaring that the said property of the
petitioners', being land admeasuring 0 Hector 11 Aar out of
Survey no. 365/1/1 situated at Village Bhosari, Taluka Haveli,
District - Pune within the limits of Pimpri Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation, which is designated/specified/
reserved for Bus Terminus as per Development Plan dated
18/09/1995 which came into force on 02/11/1995 vide site
no/sheet no. 1/37, has lapsed as per the provisions under
Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning
Act, 1966.
(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order
thereby holding & declaring that the said property is released
from said reservations, allotment or designation and has
become available to the owners / the Petitioners for the
purpose of development.
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order
thereby quashing and setting aside reservation of Bus
913.WP2957.2024.odt
Terminus as per Development Plan dated 18/09/1995 which
came into force on 02/11/1995 vide site no/sheet no. 1/37 over
the land of Petitioner admeasuring 0 Hector 11 Aar out of
Survey no. 365/1/1 situated at Village Bhosari, Taluka Haveli,
District Pune within the limits of Pimpri Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation,
(d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order
directing the respondent Government to forthwith notify the
lapsing of reservation of said property by an order published
in the Official Gazette as required under Section 127(2) of the
Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966."
3. The Petitioners' property (hereinafter referred to as the Writ
Land) admeasuring 0 Hector 11 Aar, out of Survey No. 365/1/1 situated
at Village Bhosari, Taluka Haveli, District-Pune, within the limits of
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, suffered a development plan
which was brought into force on 18.9.1995. The Land was reserved for
a bus terminus vide Sheet No. 1/37. In so far as the reservation for
widening of the road is concerned, the Petitioner has handed over the
required portion to the Corporation.
4. Since the acquisition did not fructify under the provisions of
the MRTP Act, 1966, the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or even
the new Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
the Petitioner issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP
on 2.4.2019. As the provision stood then, the Corporation had one year
913.WP2957.2024.odt
at its disposal to initiate steps towards acquisition as is the dictum laid
down in M/s. Girnar Traders v/s. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC
555 and M/s. Girnar Traders(3) v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2011)
3 SCC 1.
5. This Petition has been filed on 5.2.2024, which is almost 5
years after the purchase notice was issued.
6. The learned Advocate for the Corporation has vehemently
opposed this Petition. He submits that the Corporation has addressed a
letter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) for initiating
appropriate steps by carrying out measurement of land. The charges for
measurement have been deposited by the Corporation on 2.7.2025. The
learned Senior Advocate Shri Dani rightly submits that this is an act in
desperation by the Corporation. Having realised that they have not
initiated any steps as per the prescription under Section 126 of the MRTP
Act, it has to be concluded that the Corporation, as an Acquiring Body,
has not initiated any steps for acquisition of the land.
7. In view of the above, this Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a) to (d). As a consequence, the Corporation would
forward the letter to the State Government communicating this order and
913.WP2957.2024.odt
seeking lapsing of reservation, within 30 days from today, considering
the request that the staff is busy in Local Body Elections. In turn, the
State Government shall issue the notification for lapsing of reservation
within 45 days thereafter.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
