MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RISOD Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA SHANKARLAL SABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by defendant no. 3-the Municipal Council, since the suit filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff came to be decreed by the first Appellate Court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) The facts shorn of details are as under -Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is the owner of field S. No. 10/1 of village risod, Distt. Washim. There is a Municipal Council at Risod. The Development authority prepared a Development Plan for said Municipal area of Risod. Survey no. 10/1 belonging to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 came to be reserved for the weekly market and cattle market by a sanction dated 23-11-1985. On 1-1-1986, the Government issued a Notification reserving the said land for the said purpose and giving out its intention to acquire the said land, In spite of the Notification in respect of the Development Plan, the defendants failed to acquire the said land. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a notice on 5-2-1996 to defendants calling upon them to purchase the land. After receipt of this notice, it is alleged that the appellant-defendant No. 3 passed resolution to acquire the said land. On 11-7-1996, accordingly a proposal was sent by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 for acquisition of the said land. However, the process of acquisition was not completed within period of six months. The plaintiff, therefore, submits that since the process of acquisition was not completed within period of six months as contemplated by section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') the land stood dereserved. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a declaration to that effect by filing the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds. It is the contention of the defendants that since the resolution of acquisition was passed and the proposal was sent to the Collector, it cannot be said that the land has been dereserved. It was contended that the process of land acquisition was still in progress and the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit.