SAU. VIMALA MADAN MALARA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in the present petition is, whether the land designated as 'green belt' in the development plan can be subjected to the provisions of Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTP Act, 1966').

(2.) The City and Industrial Development Corporation is the Special Planning Authority in respect of the Notified Area, Waluj. The State Government sanctioned development plan for notified CIDCO area by notification dtd. 14/8/2001. The petitioners claim to be owners of land bearing Gut No. 183, admeasuring 5-H, 92-R to the extent of area 5 Acres and 30 R situated at village Tisgaon, Tal. and Dist. Aurangabad. In the development plan, the land owned by the petitioners is shown to be affected by 20 meters green belt. The petitioners initially offered to surrender the land in consideration of amount of compensation by way of application dtd. 17/6/2014 and 25/6/2014. However, CIDCO did not show any interest in acquiring the land owned by the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1, therefore, issued a Purchase Notice on 10/7/2014 to CIDCO under Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Two Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTP Act, 1966') thereby calling upon the CIDCO to acquire the land. A reminder notice was served on 17/12/2014. It is the case of the petitioner that since a period of 10 years has lapsed from the date of notification of development plan and since CIDCO failed to acquire the land within a period of 24 months from the date of service of the purchase notice, the designation of the land as 'green belt' has lapsed.

(3.) The petition is resisted by CIDCO by filing affidavit-in-reply contending that in the sanctioned development plan of Waluj notified area, a strip of 20 meters wide land is designated as 'Green Belt' along both sides of existing rivers/nalas. It is contended that such designation is not 'reservation' as the same is not listed in the reservation list approved by the State Government while sanctioning the development plan. CIDCO has produced such list of reservations at Exh.R-1 to the affidavit-in-reply. To buttress its contention that there is no reservation on the land of the petitioners, it is further averred that the lands along both the sides of river/nalas are required to be kept as 'Green Belt' in order to keep safe distance between growing urbanization and river/nala course considering environmental, ecological and health aspects as such land acts as buffer space. It is further contended that the petition is premised on erroneous interpretation of provisions of MRTP Act, 1966.