RAVIKANT LAKSHMINARAYAN ZANWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. In view of the order passed on 01.03.2012 and by consent of the parties, we proceed to hear and dispose of the petition at the stage of admission. This is a Writ Petition by a person claiming to be owner of Survey No. 120, Sub-division No. 1A, 2 and 3, admeasuring 2 H. 47 R of Mouza Rahatgaon, District Amravati. This land is within the municipal limits of the Amravati Municipal Corporation. This land was reserved for play ground and for primary school.

(2.) The respondent no. 2 is the Planning Authority and the petitioner has stated that the reservation in terms of the above public purpose was sanctioned w.e.f. 25.02.1993, however, as no steps were taken for acquisition of the petitioner's land either by way of an agreement or by resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 a notice came to be served calling upon the Planning Authority to take requisite steps in terms of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1966 Act" for short). Upon service of that notice within a statutory period of 12 months, if further steps as contemplated are not taken, it is stated that the reservation lapses and land is required to be restored to the petitioner for being used in terms of the provisions of the 1966 Act and Building Byelaws.

(3.) Upon notice of this writ petition being served on the respondents, reply has been filed on behalf of the Collector of the Amravati District and Municipal Corporation, Amravati and it states that the facts stated in the Writ Petition cannot be disputed and the land admeasuring 6700 sq. mtrs was reserved for the above purpose. Although it is stated that a proposal for acquisition of the land was initiated and an order was issued on 22.12.2011 by the Collector, District Amravati and ultimately joint measurements have been undertaken, but no explanation is put forward as to how further steps have been taken and within what period. In other words whether they have been taken within the statutory limits and period prescribed, has not been clarified. On the other hand, there is a reply filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, in which it is stated that what the petitioner claims to have served was a purchase notice and which is stated to have been received on 29.12.2010. It is stated that the measurement map was sought and it was supplied on 28.11.2011 and that is how the proposal for acquiring the land was forwarded on 15.12.2011 and the Collector has issued an order to publish a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In such circumstances, it is submitted that there is no substance in the writ petition and it should be dismissed.