JAIKA VANIJYA LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek declaration that reservation of land of House No. 2032, Khasra No. 5/4, mouza Wanjri, Kamptee Road, Nagpur has lapsed and that land is now available for development as otherwise permissible in terms of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "1966 Act"). The petition is being opposed by Nagpur Improvement Trust which is respondent No. 2 as also by respondent No. 4 Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Affidavit in reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. No reply has been filed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. Petitioner No. 1, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its Director, petitioner No. 2 served a notice dated 7th October, 2011 on Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust and also on Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur as per the provisions of Section 127 of the 1966 Act. Assistant Director of Town Planning. Nagpur Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 5) forwarded reply on 25.10.2011 and pointed out that notice was not accompanied by any title document and measurement map, no cognizance thereof would be taken till those documents were supplied. On 8.11.2011 petitioners supplied copy of Property Register as demanded in proof of their title. They also pointed out that 7/12 extract maintained under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Measurement Map were not available. On 23.1.2012, the Nagpur Improvement Trust through its Superintending Engineer informed petitioners that notice needed to be served upon Appropriate Authority and as per Development Plan, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) for whom reservation has been provided is/was that Authority. On 5th March, 2012, respondent No. 5 informed petitioners that copy of Property Card/ Register, 7/12 extract and measurement map were not supplied till then and hence, notice would not come in force and invalid.

(2.) In this background, Mr. S. V. Manohar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. A. A. Naik, learned counsel submits that expiry of period often years from publication of final development plan and service of notice upon respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is not in dispute. Provisions of Section 127 of 1966 Act have been satisfied in present matter and as within a period of one year, the land has not been acquired, the same automatically gets dereserved. He relies upon express language of Section 127 for said purposes. In alternative and without prejudice, he submits that said provision only requires property card to be supplied as a proof of interest/ownership and there is no need to supply revenue record or the measurement map. Petitioners supplied necessary Property Card on 8.11.2011 and hence, the notice became valid. As no action was taken within one year of that notice, the petition as filed is liable to be allowed. In support of his contention, he relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishna Kumar v. Phulchand Agarwala & Ors., 1977 AIR(SC) 984 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hirabai Dattatray & Ors. v. Sangli Miraj, Kupwada Mpl. Corporation & Anr., 2007 4 MhLJ 90. He also invites attention to a communication dated 2.3.2012 forwarded by panel Advocate of MSRTC to urge that therein the MSRTC has expressly indicated that it does not need the land in question. Hence, there is no question of respondents acquiring the same.

(3.) Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has invited attention to reply affidavit. He submits that notice under Section 127 of 1966 Act as issued is not valid and as necessary documents were not annexed along with it, the petition based upon it is liable to be dismissed. He further states that the Municipal Authorities have on 5.3.2012 informed petitioners that petitioners should submit a proposal to accept transferable development rights so that the proposal for acquisition can be processed further in accordance with law. He relies upon the notice under Section 127 and language thereof to show that as notice is not of period of one year, it is invalid. Judgment reported in Perfect Machine Tools v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2008 2 MhLJ 404 is pressed into service by him to submit that the law requires strict compliance with provisions of Section 127 of 1966 Act.