Ashok Ramkisan Sikchi v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Department Of Urban Development And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:18454-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 WRIT PETITION NO. 3929 OF 2024 ASHOK RAMKISAN SIKCHI ....Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS .....Respondents .....

Mr. Devdatt P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. R. Wakale, AGP for Respondents State Ms. Snehal Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

CORAM

: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 14th August, 2024 ORDER:

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2.

There is no dispute that the Petitioner is owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 00 H 20 R in Gat No. 42 of Village Golwadi, Taluka and District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The sanctioned development plan dated 14.08.2001, for the purpose of a Veg. Market - was notified by the CIDCO in the Waluj notified area. On 01.04.2022, the purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), was issued. Notice was served on the Planning Authority as well as the State Government. No steps were

taken, save and except, that the Development Rights Certificate was offered by the Planning Authority.

3.

The learned Advocate for the CIDCO has canvassed that this Petition has been filed prematurely before expiry of two years from the date of service of the purchase notice. The notice has been prepared on 01.04.2022 and forwarded by post to the CIDCO, which reached the CIDCO on 04.04.2022. The period of 24 months would expire on 3rd April, 2024. We are of the view that whether the Petitioner files a Petition or not, would not be so relevant while calculating the period of two years, which already has been completed on 03.04.2024. Thereafter, it is for the CIDCO authority to declare that the reservation has lapsed. Since this is not done by the CIDCO, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court. The Writ Petition has been filed on 04.04.2024. 4.

The law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 3 SCC 1 and by the Full Bench of this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2022) 4 Mh.L.J. 739 (Full Bench), squarely applies to the present case. No steps, as are expected in view of the law laid down in Girnar Traders (supra), have been initiated by the Planning Authority.

5.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Planning Authority shall issue a letter to Respondent No.2, within 30 days from today, indicating that the reservation has lapsed. Respondent No.2 shall thereafter, issue a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act, within 60 days.

6.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) JPChavan