LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-40

PUKHRAJMAL SAGARMAL LUNKAD Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JALGAON

Decided On December 23, 2004
PUKHRAJMAL SAGARMAL LUNKAD Appellant
V/S
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, JALGAON Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing survey Number 431/b, admeasuring 2 acres, situated at Mehrun, within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Jalgaon. The petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 claim to be the owners of adjoining land, bearing Survey no. 431/a-l, 2 and 3, admeasuring 2 acres. In the year 1974, the respondent No. 1, jalgaon Municipal Council, had declared its intention to prepare a town planning scheme no. 3 for development of an area, covering both the Survey Numbers, owned by the petitioners. Under the said scheme, the land bearing Survey No. 431/b was allotted Plot no. 288 and earmarked as Reservation no. 107, for public purpose, namely 'garden'. Plot No. 431/a-l, 2 and 3, was also reserved in the said Town Planning Scheme No. 3 for the purpose of Library, Maternity Home and dispensary and was allotted plot No. 287 and earmarked as reservation Nos. 104 and 105. The lands in question were agricultural lands, at the relevant time.

(2.) THE Municipal Council, Jalgaon, published Draft Development Plan on 15-12-1971. The said plan was sanctioned by the government and after complying with the provisions of the Act, final Draft Development plan came into operation on 16-12-1974. The draft Development Plan, so also, the Final development Plan provided for the same public purpose for which the concerned plots were reserved in the Town Planning Scheme i. e. garden, library, maternity home and dispensary. The Revised Development Plan came to be submitted to the Government on 1-3-1988 and it was sanctioned by the State on 6-1-1993. It may be stated that in the revised Development Plan, the reservation for the public purpose is designated as 'civil center. The Draft Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned by the Government on 9-9-1976. The Arbitrator submitted the Final Town planning Scheme to the Government for sanction on 5-10-1988 and the Government granted sanction to the Final Town Planning scheme on 31-5-1993.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the Planning Authority had resolved to de-reserve the land from the Development plan earmarked for public purpose vide resolution dated 15-9-1971. However, no further steps were taken and the lands continued to be earmarked for public purpose. In this regard, the Planning Authority has submitted that the Draft Development Plan was first time published by the Municipal council on 15-12-1971 and hence any resolution passed by the Municipal Council prior to the said date viz. 15-12-1971 would have no bearing on the proceedings under the m. R. T. P. Act. The said resolution dated 15-12-1971 in this view of the matter, would be wholly inoperative. The petitioner also claimed to have made representations for deletion of lands from reservation but the request was not acceded to. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1984, the municipal Council had submitted a proposal for deletion of the reservation from the development Plan. Perusal of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that the said proposal was rejected by the State government. The fact remains, that the lands in question were reserved and earmarked for public purpose in the Development Plan and it continued to be so. The said lands were also included in the Town Planning Scheme for public purpose, as indicated hereinabove for Garden, Maternity home, Dispensary and library. The petitioners claim that the lands be deleted from reservation from the Town planning Scheme, so also, from the development Plan. It is next prayed that the petitioners had taken steps under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as "the m. R. T. P. Act" for the sake of brevity), by serving notice on the Planning Authority on 7-10-1986 and as no steps are taken for acquisition by the Planning Authority, it be declared that the reservation has lapsed. In the submission of the petitioners, the petitioners, at any rate, would be entitled to compensation to be determined, according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, in view of Section 126 of the Act.