SHAMRAO NANASO SHINGAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is the owner of land bearing Survey No.261/5B admeasuring 3300 sq. mtrs. situated at Malkaur Nagar Parishad, Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara ('writ land') is challenging the rejection of the Petitioner's plan for development, although the reservation on the writ property has lapsed, on account of failure to acquire the writ property.

(2.) We have heard both counsel and have perused the papers and proceedings.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Rao, learned Advocate for the Petitioner draws our attention to the Purchase Notice dtd. 26/4/2019 issued by the Petitioner under Sec. 49(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('MRTP Act') which was confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra as per Sec. 49(4) of the MRTP Act vide its Order dtd. 23/10/2019. As per the mandate of Sec. 49(7) of the MRTP Act the Respondent No.2 ought to have made an Application to acquire the land as required under Sec. 126 of the MRTP Act within a period of 1 year from the date of confirmation of the Purchase Notice. That period expired on 22/10/2020. Admittedly no steps were taken to comply with the mandate of Sec. 49(7) of the MRTP Act and therefore the writ land stood released from the reservation and is available to the Petitioner for the purposes of development. Despite the fact that, the writ land stood released, the Application for development made by the Petitioner was rejected by Respondent No.2 by its Order dtd. 4/2/2021. 3.1) It is an admitted fact that, the Respondent No.2 has not taken any steps for acquiring the writ land and can be evinced by the communication dtd. 1/6/2022 from the District Collector's Office. He admitted that, the Petitioner had filed an Appeal before the Government of Maharashtra. However for one and half years the same is not heard and the Report dtd. 4/7/2019 submitted to the Government of Maharashtra indicates that, the organization namely Santkrupa Swayam Sidh Mahila Bachat Ghat Sanstha for which the writ land was reserved does not exist in the limits of Respondent No.2 and the organization was not available on its communication address. In view of the above, the rejection to develop the writ land was illegal and against the provisions of law. He submits that this is nothing else but harassment to the Petitioner who now is 82 years old. Under these circumstances he has filed the Petition and requests that, the Petition be made absolute.