Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
..1.. WP.12271.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12271 OF 2019 1.
Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal Age : 70 years, Occu : Business & Agriculture, R/o. 122, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 2.
Satish Soma Bhole, Age : 65 years, Occu : Business & Agriculture, R/o. Tailor House, Shivram Nagar, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 3.
Smt. Hansa Indravadan Shah Age : 62 years, Occu : Business and Agriculture, R/o. Tijori Galli, Polan Peth, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 4.
Nishant Indravadan Shah Age : 40 years, Occu : Agriculture and Service, R/o. Tijori Galli, Polan Peth, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Through his General Power of Attorney Holder i.e. Petitioner No. 3 .. Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Ministry of Urban Development Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2.
The Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune 3.
The Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 4.
The Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 5.
Assistant Director, Town Planning,
..2.. WP.12271.2019 Municipal Corporation Jalgaon, Jalgaon 6.
Municipal Corporation Jalgaon, through its Commissioner .. Respondents ...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Anand P. Bhandari AGP for the Respondent / State : Mrs. R.P. Gour Advocate for Respondent nos.5 & 6 : Mr. L.V. Sangeet . . .
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 25-07-2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
1.
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mrs. R.P. Gour, learned AGP waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondent - State. Mr. L.V. Sangeet, learned Advocate waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondent - Corporation. 2.
It is a matter of dereservation as contemplated under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter in short 'MRTP Act'). The petitioners are the owners of two pieces of lands admeasuring 20 Are each out of two survey numbers. The Development Plan had taken place in two phases, first on 07.03.2002 and another on 10.08.2004 and the same came into force w.e.f. 01.10.2004. The writ lands as Site No.144
..3.. WP.12271.2019 (EP-35) were reserved for play ground. Since no further steps were taken for acquisition, the petitioners served a notice dated 31.07.2017, still the respondent - Corporation did not take steps to acquire the land in terms of Section 126 of the MRTP Act by issuing a notification by resorting to either Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act or Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners were offered TDR in lieu of the monetary compensation, but they turned down the offer.
3.
Though in the affidavit-in-reply and by tendering across the bar the resolution dated 21.02.2019 attempt has been made to demonstrate that some steps have been taken by passing a resolution to offer the petitioners TDR in lieu of the compensation that having not been accepted, the respondent - Corporation has no option. Still, a joint measurement has taken place and attempt is made to demonstrate that steps are being taken towards acquisition. 4.
In view of such state-of-affairs, since no steps have been taken as contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act within the stipulated time, reservation would lapse automatically since there is no dispute about the time line required to be followed under Section 127.
..4.. WP.12271.2019 5.
The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. Steps be taken for issuing necessary notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. 6.
Rule is made absolute.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ) GGP