Mahesh S/O. Shankarrao Gulhane And Another v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principal Secretary Urban Development Department, Mumbai And Another

wp6144.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.6144/2022 1.

Mahesh S/o Shankarrao Gulhane, aged about 44 years, occu: Agriculture, R/o Sadhone Layout, Gitai Nagar, Nalwadi, Wardha.

2.

Mahesh S/o Keshavdas Batra, aged about 47 years, occu: Agriculture, R/o Ram Nagar, Wardha.

..PETITIONERS v e r s u s 1) State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Urban Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2) Municipal Council, Katol Through its Chief Officer, Katol, Dist. Nagpur.

..R ESPONDENT S .................................................................................................................. Mr M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.M. Deshpande, In-charge Government Pleader for respondent no.1.

Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent no.2. ................................................................................................................

CORAM

: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATE D : 17.10.2022.

ORAL

JUDGMENT

: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.) 1.

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

3.

The reply filed by respondent no.2-Municipal Council, Katol

wp6144.2022 is categorical. In Paragraph 3, it is stated that the issue in question was taken up in the General Body meeting of the Municipal Council, Katol as subject No.30 on 7.4.2021 and in this meeting, after discussion, it was unanimously resolved that the subject land which is currently reserved for the purpose of play ground should not be acquired and this fact should be intimated to the land-owners. This reply is well-supported by copy of the Resolution bearing No.30/2021 which is at page 28. 4.

It is, thus, clear that the subject land is not proposed to be acquired by the Municipal Council-respondent no.2, under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. Besides, there is no dispute about receipt of notice by respondent no.2 which is a purchase notice by respondent no.2, u/s. 127 of the MRTP Act. These facts would entail this Court to allow this petition by issuing necessary directions. 5.

The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). We direct that lapsing of the land shall be published accordingly by seeking necessary approvals within three months from the date of this order.

6.

Rule in above terms. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.

Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO TAMBASKAR Private Secretary Date:17.10.2022 18:18