Antar Bharti Ashram vs State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department & Others

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.(Oral) - Rule, returnable early. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

Service of a valid notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is not in dispute. However, only defence raised by the Planning Authority is that original owner Dr. S.P. Gumastha has donated the land, which could have been otherwise declared surplus to petitioner before scheme under Section 20 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was sanctioned.

Adv. Parchure for petitioner is relying upon order of exemption dated 16/3/1981. He states that exemption has been granted specifically for enabling Dr. S.P. Gumastha to donate that land to petitioner public trust and for construction of a hospital and dispensary upon it by petitioner public trust.

With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused papers. We find that in opening paragraph 1 itself of the order of exemption dated 16/3/1981, purpose of granting exemption has been stipulated. Purpose is to enable owner Dr. S.P. Gumastha to donate that land to petitioner. The petitioner has to use it for construction of hospital and dispensary and for no other purpose.

In the development plan, that land was earmarked for construction of market. The petitioner public trust, therefore, could not raise hospital or dispensary upon it. Hence, after waiting for requisite period, petitioner has issued a valid notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. In this situation, contention that Dr. S.P. Gumastha has donated the surplus land to petitioner Trust before 16/3/1981 is not relevant at all.

As service of valid notice, expiry of waiting period of one year and absence of any steps by Planning Authority to acquire said land in the meanwhile are all factors, which are not in dispute, it is apparent that the reservation lapses and land becomes available for purpose for which adjacent land has been used. Accordingly, we partly allow writ petition and make rule absolute in terms of its prayer clause (i). No costs.