Naresh Dharamsingh Goyal v. The State Of Maharashtra,Thr. Secretary Urban Development, Dept. Mumbai And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 531 OF 2022 Naresh Dharamsingh Goyal, age 67 years, Occ. Agriculturist & Business, R/o C/o Sanjau Lilaram Gulani, Ward No. 11, Back Side of Bharat Rice Mill, Near Zhulala Mandir, Mul, Tq. Mul, District Chandrapur.

PETITIONER .....VERSUS.....

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.

The Director of Town Planning, State of Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune - 1. 3.

Municipal Council (M.C.)/ Nagar Parishad, Mul, through its Chief Officer, Tq. Mul, District Chandrapur. R ESPONDENT S Shri G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ State. Shri M.V. Bute, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, J J . D ATE : 13 TH JULY, 2022 .

ORAL

JUDGMENT

(PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing survey No. 144 at Tahsil - Mul, District - Chandrapur under the development plan sanctioned by the State Government on 15/12/2001.

The said land was shown to be reserved for garden. 3.

On 23/12/2019, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the said Act") calling upon the planning authority as well as the Municipal Council - respondent No.3 to acquire the said land for the purpose for which it was reserved. Along with the notice, 7/12 extract and part plan was submitted to the Municipal Council. This notice has been duly served on the Municipal Council. Since, no steps were taken for acquiring the land in question, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of more than ten years has now lapsed since the land in question was shown in the development plan prepared by respondent No.1. The notice period of 24 months has also lapsed after 23/12/2019. Since, no steps have been taken by respondent No.3 to acquire the land in question, it is deemed that the reservation has lapsed after a period of 24 months. 5.

The learned Counsel for respondent No.3, by relying upon the affidavit-in-reply, submitted that the documents of title were not submitted along with the aforesaid notice. However, on 18/03/2021, the Municipal Council had passed a resolution stating therein that on account of financial constraints, it would not be in a position to acquire the said

land for the purpose for which it was reserved. It is also pointed out that initially, on 13/12/2019, steps had been taken to acquire the said land in question, but by passing subsequent resolution, it was indicated by the Municipal Council that it would not be feasible to acquire the said land. 6.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusing the documents on record, it is clear that the notice dated 23/12/2019 has been served on the Municipal Council. Along with that notice, 7/12 extract and part plan of the said land was annexed. This document indicates interest of the petitioner in the said land. Since, notice has been duly served and the statutory period of 24 months has now lapsed, it is clear that in the absence of any steps taken for acquiring the said land, the deeming fiction contained in Section 127 of the said Act would apply. As a result, on expiry of period of 24 months from service of such notice, the reservation subjected to the said land would stand lapsed.

7.

Accordingly, the following order is passed :

ORDER

It is declared that the land bearing survey No. 144 ad measuring 1.82 H.R. stands released from reservation, the same having

lapsed under Section 127 of the said Act. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall take steps to notify the de-reservation of the aforesaid land expeditiously and within a period of three months from today. The petitioner is free to develop his land in accordance with the development as permitted for the adjoining land.

8.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

(URMILA JOSHI - PHALKE, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) SUMIT AGRAWAL