Suresh Manakchand Zambad v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:15221-DB 906(A)-WP-6152-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6152 OF 2021 SURESH MANAKCHAND ZAMBAD

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ....

Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent - State Mr. Jiwan J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 ....

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 18.07.2024 PER COURT :- 1.

The Petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B) as under:- "(B) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby declare that the reservation of "School admeasuring about 2661.36 sqr.mtrs." on the land of the petitioner i.e. 0H 62R land out of Gut No.52(P) of village Golwadi, Tal and Dist. Aurangabad is lapsed and the land is free from reservation and available for development to the petitioner as per the use permissible to the adjacent land."

2.

The affidavit-in-reply on behalf of CIDCO indicates that CIDCO had offered TDR which the Petitioner has refused to accept. However, it is conceded that after the purchase notice was received by CIDCO, a notification u/s 19 of the Right to Fair

(( 2 )) 906(A)-WP-6152-2021 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, has not been issued. 3.

It is concluded in Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, (2022) 4 Mh.L.J. 739, that the offering of the TDR is not a step towards acquisition as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 555.

4.

Considering the above, we do not find that the contentions of CIDCO could be entertained to refute the request of the Petitioner for releasing the land from reservation. 5.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

6.

Respondent No.1 shall issue an appropriate Notification within a period of 90 days from today.

7.

Needless to state, if the model code of conduct is declared, the same shall not be an impediment for issuing the notification.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] SMS