PANJAB PRAKASHRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Public Interest Litigation is instituted in the year 2017 seeking issuance of writ of certiorari and allied directions to quash and set aside the communication dtd. 21/9/2015 issued from the Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, whereby it was communicated to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Hingoli that certain reservations affecting the subject lands have lapsed in terms of Sec. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the MRTP Act"). The petitioner also prays for directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to maintain the reservation of the disputed property for public amenities such as stadium, high school, primary school, health centre, library, gymnasium, garden/open space etc. In the alternative, it is prayed that the petitioner's representation dtd. 9/9/2016 be decided by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) The factual canvas, in so far as is necessary for adjudication, is that the subject property comprises lands bearing Survey Nos. 143, 144 (part), 146/2, 154 and 155 (and allied sub-divisions, as pleaded), originally owned by Usmanshahi Mills, later stated to be National Textile Corporation. It is pleaded that in the year 1996, the then owner sought non-agricultural permission and the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Aurangabad by order dtd. 19/11/1996 granted such permission and sanctioned a layout wherein open spaces, primary school and playground were earmarked and internal roads of varying widths were shown. It is further pleaded that MSRTC acquired Plot Nos. 19 to 23 from the sanctioned map and succeeded in establishing its ownership in those plots.

(3.) The petitioner asserts that the Revised Development Plan of Municipal Council, Hingoli was sanctioned by notification dtd. 28/4/1994 and came into force from 1/7/1994, and under such plan the subject lands were affected by multiple reservations for public amenities including stadium, high school, primary school, health centre, library, gymnasium, garden and open space. The petitioner then traces a sale deed executed by National Textile Corporation in favour of Respondent No. 5 - M/s Nidhi Mercantile Limited, referring to the property by survey numbers and PR card numbers. The petitioner's grievance, in essence, is that land reserved for public purposes has been sought to be "de-reserved" through the impugned communication and thereafter Respondent No. 5 has attempted to create third-party interests by carving out and selling plots even from areas which were earlier earmarked for public amenities/open spaces.