Bombay High Court
Shri Suresh S/O Ramchandra Ramteke And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principal ... on 10 June, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3100.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3100 OF 2015.
1. Shri Suresh s/o Ramchandra Ramteke,
Aged 52 years, Occupation - Service,
resident of Plot no.136, New Thaware
Colony, Jaripatka, Nagpur - 14.
2. Shri Vinod s/o Shankar Barde,
Aged 60 years, Occupation - Retired,
resident of at Post Tah. Bramhapuri,
District Chandrapur. ....PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Deaprtment,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Nagar Parishad, Bramhapuri,
Tahsil Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur.
3. The President of Nagar Parishad,
Bramhapuri, Tahsil Bramhapuri,
District Chandrapur.
4. Municipal Counsel, Bramhapuri,
though its Chief Officer, Bramhapuri. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:54:26 :::
Judgment wp3100.15
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. H.B, Bargat, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. P. Rane, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Mr. R.J. Kankale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 10, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By their consent and considering the nature of controversy, Rule is issued in the matter and the same is made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioners seek declaration of lapsing of reservation on Survey Nos. 404/K and 404/1A of Mouza Bramhapuri, Tahsil and District Chandrapur.
3. Respondents have failed their reply and only defence raised by them is absence of funds for paying compensation. Shri Kankale, learned ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:54:26 ::: Judgment wp3100.15 3 Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4, submits that for last about three years, there was no regular Chief Officer with the Municipal Council, and hence no decision could be taken.
4. Shri Bargat, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that provisions of Section 127[1] of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 needs to be complied with and hence, reservation is deemed to have been lapsed. He submits that the issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2013 [5] Mh.L.J. 492 (Shrirampur Municipal Council .vrs. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dwakher and others) and (2013) 4 SCC 676 (State of Maharashtra v. Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust).
5. Service of a valid notice by the petitioners, receipt thereof by the Municipal Council, expiry of period of one year after service thereof, are not in dispute. The notice is dated 14.01.2013 and it is received by the inward section of the Municipal Council on the very same day. Period of one year therefrom has expired on 14.01.2014. Thus, on that day, reservation on land mentioned supra, as prescribed in the Development Plan has lapsed.
6. Accordingly, we declare that from 14.01.2014, reservation on ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:54:26 ::: Judgment wp3100.15 4 above mentioned survey numbers have lapsed and those lands have become available for their use by petitioners for the purpose of which the lands, adjacent to it, can be developed.
7. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:54:26 :::