Bharat Dhondnaji Waghide & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

(PER : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The prayer made in Clause (A) of the petition reads as under:-

In support of the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioners are joint owners and possessors of land bearing Survey No.42, area admeasuring 2.28H.R. of Village Padoli, Tq. Chandrapur Dist. Chandrapur. Respondent No.1, i.e. the Secretary, Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra, appointed Respondent No.2, i.e. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), as a Special Agency. The Regional Development Plan of Chandrapur–Ballarpur region was published by respondent No.1 on 30/06/1998, which came into force after its sanction on 01/09/1998. The land, stated above, in the Regional Development Plan was shown to have been reserved for Truck Terminus vide Reservation No.10.

On 03/03/2023, since despite lapse of 10 years from the date on which a final Regional Plan/Development Plan came into force, the land was not acquired, a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘Act of 1966’), was personally served upon the Assistant Director of Town Planning/Special Planning Authority, Chandrapur, which was duly acknowledged on 03/03/2023. Along with the said notice, a 7/12 extract and Patwari Map were also filed. The petitioner then contended that in spite of lapse of 24 months from the date of service of notice, neither the land was acquired, nor steps to acquire the same were taken. Thus, the present writ petition praying for declaration of lapsing of reservation was filed.

In pursuance with notice issued, the respondent No.2 has filed its reply dated 16/07/2025 and admitted that the Regional Development Plan was published on 30/06/1998 and came into force on 01/09/1998. The nature of reservation qua the petitioners’ land was not disputed. The receipt of notice under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 was also admitted. It was stated that the respondent No.2 had demanded the requisite amount from the State Government for completing the acquisition proceedings; however, the said amount was not received and, therefore, further proceedings could not be done.

It is in this background, we have considered the contention of the petitioners. As most of the facts are undisputed, namely, the date on which the Regional Development Plan was sanctioned and came into force, i.e. 01/09/1998, the receipt of the purchase notice on 03/03/2023, and the fact that no steps of acquisition of the said land were taken within 24 months from the receipt of the notice, it is clear that the time frame provided under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 has been satisfied.

The respondent No.2 made a categorical statement in its affidavit dated 16/07/2025 that, for want of funds, acquisition could not be completed. This clearly shows that there is no hurdle to allow the present petition.

In that view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioners have made out a case that their land was not acquired in statutory time limit provided under Section 127 of the Act of 1966, which results into passing following order :-

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.