Bombay High Court
Sacred Heart Convent School Sister Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 11 March, 2020
Author: Surendra P.Tavade
Bench: R.D.Dhanuka, Surendra P.Tavade
Digitally
Aarti signed by
Aarti G.
Palkar
910.WPST.12578.2019.doc
G. Date:
Palkar 2020.03.13
17:31:32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.12578 OF 2019
Sacred Heart Convent School ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajan S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.
Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar a/w. Mr. Mohan Devkule, Advocate for the Respondent
No.3.
CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA AND
SURENDRA P.TAVADE, JJ.
DATE : 11th MARCH, 2020.
P. C. :
1. By this petition fled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the order/communication dated 18.03.2019 passed by the Respondent No.3/Chief Ofcer, Ratnagiri Municipal Council, is illegal and seeks declaration that the petitioner has a right to develop the suit land for the purpose of High School.
2. Mr. Pawar, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State invited our attention to the 'Standardised Development Control And Promotion Regulations For Municipal Councils And Nagar Panchayats in Maharashtra' and more particularly Regulation Clause 6(b) which provides that the Planning Authority may acquire and develop the site for High school ORA Public Authority, a Registered Public Trust or a Registered Society Aarti Palkar 1/3
910.WPST.12578.2019.doc may be allowed to acquire and develop the land for High School. The owner may be allowed to develop the High school. He further states that the Petitioner is ready and willing to develop the said land for High school.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 on the other hand states that the Town Planning Scheme is already sanctioned under Section 88(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 for the land in question on 20.04.2017. The claims of the afected persons are yet to be fnaliied by the Arbitrator. The Respondent No.4 has not decided till date as to who will be allowed to develop the said land for High school. If the petitioner makes a representation before the Respondent No.3 for appropriate relief, such representation would be considered by the Chief Ofcer. Statement is accepted.
4. The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the efect that the petitioner be allowed to develop the said land for High school under Clause 6(b) of the said Regulation. Such representation shall be made within one week from today. The Chief Ofcer shall decide the said representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation and shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of the order.
5. Till such representation is decided by the Respondent No.3, the Respondent No.3 shall not disturb the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question. If the order that would be passed by the Respondent No.3 is adverse against the petitioner, the same shall not be Aarti Palkar 2/3
910.WPST.12578.2019.doc implemented for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the said order.
6. Place this petition on board for admission on 27th April, 2020.
[SURENDRA P.TAVADE, J.] [R.D.DHANUKA, J.]
Aarti Palkar 3/3