Bombay High Court
Ujwal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 10 June, 2019
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande, Vinay Joshi
WP6590.2016.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 6590 of 2016
(Ujwal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Oth.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms N. P. Mehta, AGP for the respondent No.1
Shri G. A. Kunte, Advocate for the respondent No.2
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE AND
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 10th June 2019.
Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] The dispute raised in this petition pertains to 7500 Sq.Mtrs. of land out of Khasara No. 120/1, Mouza Somalwada, Tah. and Distt. Nagpur in terms of clause (9) of the agreement dated 04.07.1979. The said clause (9) is under challenge and the reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by L.Rs. .v/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in AIR 1995 SC 430 and Yogendra Pal and Others .v/s. Municipality Bhatinda and Anr. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 709. It is urged that without granting compensation, there cannot be acquisition of land, owned by this petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2019 23:29:33 :::WP6590.2016.odt 2/3 3] The learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon decision of Division Bench of this Court which has been confirmed by the Apex Court in case of Narayan Jagobaji Gowande Public Trust .v/s. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 443. It is urged that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner have been considered and the view taken by this Court is that the agreement creates reciprocal rights and obligations which binds the parties to the agreement.
4] It is not in dispute that the petitioner-society was the owner of entire khasara No. 120/1, Mouza Somalwada, Tah. & Distt. Nagpur. As per the agreement dated 04/07/1979, entered into between the society and the Nagpur Improvement Trust, the area sanctioned in the layout and shown as open space shall have to be transferred to the party No.1-Nagpur Improvement Trust. Clause No. (9) being relevant in the agreement is reproduced below:
"(9) The party No. 2 shall reserve in the layout ten percent of the total land or more as may be required as shown in the layout plan for open space/s, and transfer the same duly developed to the party No.1 free of cost, for public institutional and public utility purposes, and for such other purposes as the ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2019 23:29:33 ::: WP6590.2016.odt 3/3 party No. 1 may determine, and the party No. 1 shall be free to dispose of such land according to its rules and regulations."
5] The agreement dated 04/07/1979 containing the aforesaid clause is being challenged in the petition filed in the year 2016. We find that it is the voluntary transfer by an agreement by the owner of the property in favour of Nagpur Improvement Trust in consideration of the sanction of the layout plan. It creates reciprocal rights and obligations, which are binding on the parties to the agreement. This case is completely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in case of Narayan Jagobaji Gowande (cited supra).
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
*Namrata
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2019 23:29:33 :::