Bombay High Court
Bhojraj S/O.Bhayyalalji Gupta & Ano vs The State Of Mah.Thr. Secy. & 3 Ors on 23 February, 2017
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, Swapna Joshi
wp2061.94 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2061 OF 1994
1. Bhojraj s/o Bhayyalalji Gupta,
70 years;
2. Smt. Chotibai w/o Bhojraj Gupta,
aged about 61 years
Both r/o Old Chunabhatti, Rajapeth,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
3. Rameshwar Shivprasad Gaggad,
aged 50 years, occupation -
Business, r/o Mangilal Plots,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
4. Shri Vikas Surendraji Kejriwal,
aged 28 years, occupation -
Business, r/o Sharda Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
5. Dr. Ashish Rameshchandra Maloo,
aged 38 years, occupation -
Business, r/o 20, Jairam Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
6. Shri Premji Narayanrao Patle,
aged about 46 years, r/o Bajaj
Nagar, Nagpur.
7. Shri Govind Shankarlal Gandhi,
aged about 32 years, occupation
Business, r/o Vilas Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary, Revenue
and Forest Department, Mantralaya,
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 00:39:49 :::
wp2061.94 2
Bombay.
2. The Collector, Amravati.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Zilla Parishad (Works), Amravati.
4. Amravati Municipal Corporation,
through the Municipal Commissioner,
Amravati.
5. Kishorkumar Chunnilalji Mantri,
aged about - Major, occupation -
Business, r/o Rallies Plot,
Amravati 444 601. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.J. Gilda and Shri Mihir Puranik Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri P. Tembhare, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
FEBRUARY 23, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
In peculiar situation, there are two sets of counsel appearing for the petitioners. We have heard them. We have also heard learned counsel for the respective respondents.
2. Respondent No. 4 - Planning Authority has filed an affidavit on 08.01.2017 stating that it has initiated fresh ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 00:39:49 ::: wp2061.94 3 proceedings for acquisition in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act). It, therefore, submits that challenge in present writ petition is rendered infructuous.
3. The respective counsel for the petitioners state that in present petition, vide prayer clause (f), there is a prayer to declare that there cannot be fresh reservation at Site No. 253 w.e.f. 25.02.1993. Our attention is also invited to prayer clause
(g) where it is claimed that in view of the provisions of Section 48(7) and Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as MRTP Act), since 'steps' leading to acquisition were thereafter initiated, hence the reservation has already lapsed.
4. The respective counsel for the petitioners state that after a fresh proposal was moved in the year 2012, under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioners have given a conditional acceptance and expressly mentioned that it should be treated as ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 00:39:49 ::: wp2061.94 4 a notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act. No 'steps' leading to acquisition were thereafter initiated and hence the reservation has already lapsed. Shri Kasat, learned counsel disputes this.
5. The steps initiated in the year 2012 have not resulted in any acquisition. From 01.01.2014, above mentioned 2013 Act has already come into force. In this situation, we find it appropriate to leave this contention of the petitioners open. Consequently, defences available to the respondents are also kept open. The petitioners are given liberty to raise this contention, if they are aggrieved by fresh proposal for acquisition initiated under 2013 Act.
6. With this liberty, we dispose of the present writ petition as infructuous. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 00:39:49 :::