BABANRAO DATTU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) The only issue involved in this petition is whether the Purchase Notice issued by the petitioners, under Sec. 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, of 16/9/2013 is valid or not. The incidental question arising from the main question is that if purchase notice is considered to be valid, would it lead to deemed de-reservation of the land in question in view of the provisions made in Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, ("MRTP Act', for short), or would it be affected by the sanction of revised development plan subsequent to issuance of the purchase notice.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioners, even though the Purchase Notice dtd. 16/9/2013 was issued after publication of draft revised development plan on 28/3/2013, the purchase notice was valid and as no steps for acquisition of the land within the prescribed period of one year were taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, there was de-reservation of the land in question by deeming fiction. He relies upon the view taken in this regard in the recent judgment delivered in the case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave and Ors. Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors, along with connected matters2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5273. He also relies upon the case of Balkrishna Jagannath Lad Vs. Indian Postal Department, Mumbai and Ors. 2015(5) Mh.L.J. 899.