BHUPENDRA SHRIDHAR WANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek following reliefs in the present writ petition:

(2.) Mr. Kale, learned counsel for petitioners strenuously contends that petitioners had purchased the plots in Survey No.478/1B/1, 478/1B/2, 478/1B/3 and 478/1B/4, situated at Telephone Nagar, Jalgaon under registered sale deeds. The petitioners had purchased the plots under the promise that plot nos.7 to 10 in Survey No.478/1B/3, were the open space of the said lay out and were reserved as Site No.162 under the Development Plan published on 15.03.1993. The learned counsel submits that subsequent to the purchase of plots by the petitioners the owner of plot nos.7 to 10 sold the said plots to other persons. The erstwhile owners served purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 upon the respondents-Authorities. No action was taken by the Municipal Corporation for a long time. The subsequent owners filed Writ Petition No.9685 of 2016 before this Hon'ble Court seeking deletion of reservation on plot nos.7 to 10. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 25.04.2017 and it was held that the reservation on the said plot is deemed to have lapsed. After the order is passed by this Court on 25.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.9685 of 2016, the Municipal Corporation granted permission to develop plot nos.7 to 10 and the construction commenced on the plots. The learned counsel submits that the same is against the interest of public at large. Plot Nos.7 to 10 were the only open land in the vicinity providing fresh air to the residents. Plot Nos.7 to 10 were earmarked for children's park. The benefit of ecology and larger interest of the public is required to be considered.

(3.) The learned counsel further submits that the open spaces, children's park are the lungs of the society. The same have to be maintained. If the Corporation is not acquiring the same, the citizens of the locality can raise funds for acquisition of land by the Government and the petitioners are ready to raise the funds required for the acquisition of the said plots. The learned counsel further submits that, in fact, a fraud is played upon the Municipal Corporation and the public at large by respondents. Initially Gut No.478/1B was totally admeasuring 1.40 hectors. The same was owned by one Mr. Vinay Shah. He obtained permission for lay out of the said land on 31.01.1985 from the erstwhile Municipal Council. The said property was sold by Mr. Vinay Shah to Mr. Dilip Kolhe, Sunita Rathi and Mr. Madhusudan Kabra by four different registered sale deeds dated 27.02.1987. The said property was divided into Gut Nos.478/1B/1, 478/1B/2, 478/1B/3 and 478/1B/4. It is further submitted that when original lay out was sanctioned on 31.01.1985, reservation was for an area of 1198 sq. meter. After the purchase of the said property by Dilip Kolhe and others, immediately without cancelling the earlier lay out plan, three different applications were submitted on 20.03.1987 by Chandrakant Rathi of Survey No.447/1B/1, which was granted permission on 16.04.1987. Likewise separate applications were submitted for sanction of lay out of Survey No.478/1B/3 by Dilip Kolhe on 23.03.1987. The permission is given by Municipal Council on 29.03.1987. Without showing any open space in all these four parts the lay out is sanctioned by the Municipal Council. In fact there cannot be any permission for lay out without providing open space and that to by the very same owner. As the reservation is shown in Gut