UDHAV TATYA BHOPALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the two pieces of lands which are mainly used for the purpose of agriculture can be considered as urban land under section 2 (o) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. To appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to set out few undisputed facts.

(2.) THE petitioner is owner of two agricultural lands being Survey No. 310/2 admeasuring 8 Hectares 67 Ares, and Survey No. 307/2 admeasuring 2 Hectares 57 Ares, both situated at village Majrewadi in North Solapur Taluka of Solapur District. The lands are situated within the local area of Majrewadi Village Panchayat constituted under section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958.

(3.) AFTER the advent of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, which came into operation from February 17, 1976, the petitioner filed return as contemplated under section 6 (1) of the Act. The lands are situated within the radius of 5 kilometres from the boundaries of Solapur Urban Agglomeration. The Competent Authority Solapur Agglomeration after following the requisite procedure, passed order under section 8 (4) of the Act finalising the draft statement published earlier. To the draft statement published and served upon the petitioner, on December 29, 1979 the petitioner pointed out that the two lands are mainly used for the purpose of agriculture and are therefore excluded from the definition of "urban land" under section 2 (o) of the Act. The competent authority turned down the contention on the ground that the two pieces of agricultural lands are reserved in the zonal plan, which is treated as a Master Plan, for the purposes of residential use and consequently the lands are required to be treated as urban land in accordance with provisions of section 2 (o) (c) of the Act. The petitioner filed the present petition to challenge the legality of the order of the competent authority and in paragraph 10 of the petition reasons are set out for not approaching the appellate authority under section 33 of the Act. The Division Bench at the stage of admission of the petition decided to entertain the petition even though the petitioner had not approached the Appellate Authority, presumably because the question raised in the petition is of considerable importance and would affect large number of cases.