Meera Durgadas Agrawal v. The State Of Maha., Thr. Sect. Urban Devp. Dept., Mumbai And Others

1 wp1047.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1047 OF 2016 [Meera Durgadas Agrawal .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Chopde, counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4, Shri P.P. Deshmukh, counsel for respondent no.5. ..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JUNE 16, 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the reservation of the land of the petitioner in Survey No.8/3 of mouza Pusad, District-Yavatmal ad-measuring 2.02 HR has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the petitioner is entitled to develop the land as permissible for the adjoining land, as per the relevant development plan.

As per the final development plan published in the year 1998, the land of the petitioner, as referred to hereinabove, was reserved for allotment of houses to the needy persons. Despite the publication of the final development plan on 26.5.1998, the respondents did not take any steps for the acquisition of the land for more than 10 years. The petitioner, therefore, served a notice, dated 12.9.2014 on the respondent-authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that within a period of one year from the service of the notice, the respondent no.5Municipal Council has not taken any effective steps for the acquisition of the land. It is stated that in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, the reservation of the land of the petitioner is deemed to have been lapsed.

Shri Chopde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land of the petitioner is deemed to have been released from

2 wp1047.16.odt the reservation in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, inasmuch as the respondent no.5 has not taken any steps within a period of one year from the service of the notice under Section 127 (1) of the Act. It is stated that though the notice dated 12.9.2014 was served on the respondent no.5 in September, 2014 the Section 6 Notification is not issued till date.

Shri Ghodeswar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State Government and Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 do not dispute that the Section 6 Notification is not issued despite the service of the notice on the respondent no.5 till date. It is stated on behalf of the respondent no.5 that due to paucity of funds, no effective steps could be taken for the acquisition of land though certain communications were exchanged between the respondent no.5 and the State Government after the notice was served on the respondent no.5. In the admitted facts of the case, the relief sought by the petitioner needs to be granted. It is necessary to declare that the land of the petitioner is deemed to have lapsed under Section 127 of the Act, as the respondent no.

5 has not taken any effective steps for the acquisition of the land within a period of one year from the service of the notice. Section 6 Notification is not issued till date. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the petitioner ad-measuring 02.02 HR in Survey No.8/3 of Mouza Pusad for allotment of houses to the needy persons has lapsed, in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act and the petitioner would be entitled to develop the land, as is permissible to the adjoining land, as per the relevant development plan.

Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande