DATTATRAYA SHANKRBHAT AMBALGI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two petitions are brothers and they own various lands in Sholapur City. Consequent upon the passing of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") they filed returns as required by the provisions of the said Act. They had also applied for exemption under section 20(I) of the Act. However, by an order dated 12-7-1977 their application was rejected and the exemption sought for was declined. Special Civil Application No. 138 of 1978 is directed against that order. As already stated they had filed a return of the lands held by them before the competent authority and an order dated 9-7-1978 was passed declaring certain lands as surplus. The petitioners filed an appeal was against this order and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 12-8-1978 remanded the case of competent authority for a fresh decision. On remand the competent authority passed an order and the said order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 27-3-1980. Writ Petition No. 1335 of 1980 is directed the said order.

(2.) A scheme under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was prepared and the plots held by the petitioners were included in the said scheme known as "Sholapur Town Planning Scheme No. 1". These lands are situated within the limits of the Sholapur Municipal Corporation. The lands in question are Final Plot Nos. 26, 28-A, 22, 42/1, 56-A, 44-A/1 and 23. Plot Nos. 53, 46 and 52 are also held by the petitioners but they have been leased out to various lessees who have constructed their houses thereon and are in possession of the said lands. Survey No. 53-A, which also belongs to the petitioners, in reserved for garden under the Town Planning Scheme No. 1. Survey Nos. 56-A and 53-A are finally reserved for the purposes of garden as per the scheme. Survey Nos. 26, 28-A, 22, 42/1 and 44-A/1 are the plots which are reserved for various public activities, such as buildings of primary school, high school, civil hospital, bus terminus etc. under the Town Planning Scheme. About 3 cases were decided by the competent authority and thereafter by the Appellate Authority and order were passed. These orders are collectively challenged in the present petition.

(3.) The main contention of Shri G.R. Rege, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the lands in question are specifically reserved for various public purposes. No building activity is, therefore, permitted on these lands so far as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioners cannot develop these plots and undertake any construction activity on those plots as they are revered for the purpose aforesaid. According to him, therefore, these lands are not vacant lands within the meaning of Clause "Q" of section 2, of the Act. He relies for his argument upon the definition of the expression "vacant land". He further says that from the commencement of the Act no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land and in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which the Act, applies, under sub-section 2 of section 1; but since the building activity is prohibited on these plots these lands are not covered by the expression "vacant land" and thus they are outside the purview of the provisions of the Act and consequently could not be declared as surplus under this Act. He also drew our attention to section 43 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. His submission is that under section 43 there is a total prohibition upon the building activity after the date on which are intention to prepare a development plan in any land is declared by the authority and such intention has to be published in the Official Gazette. According to him once this intention is declared and it is published in the Official Gazette, no person can change the user of any land for carrying the development of the land without the permission in writing of the competent authority. He, therefore, says that section 43 is a blanket prohibition upon the building activity and, therefore, it cannot be covered by the expression "vacant land" since construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations imposed in any area in which such land is situated. In short, therefore, his submission is that under the relevant rules and regulations no building activity is permitted on these plots so far as the petitioners are concerned and hence it is not possible for the petitioner to undertake any construction activity on these plots. There are not the vacant lands within the meaning of the expression "vacant land" and could not be declared as surplus or in manner dealt with as per the provisions of the Act.