AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)
Heard Ms.Dhanashree Nagulwar along with Mr.Madhur Deo, learned counsel for petitioner, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr.Mohan Vishnu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petitioner who is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.19/3, admeasuring 1.60HR, situated at Mouza-Pusad, Tahsil-Pusad, District-Yavatmal, has approached this Court praying for declaration that the reservation i.e. 21R land for 24 Meter DP Road, 33R land reserved for Green Belt and 06R land reserved for Yellow Belt as mentioned in the Development Plan bearing No.DEPTT. NO.TPS/2795/1267/CR-198/95/UD-13 dated 1998, is lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (Act of 1966).
The petitioner who is the owner of the land as stated above, has contended that she became owner of the aforesaid agricultural land by virtue of Sale Deed dated 17/07/1995 and the Development Plan for Pusad, came into force on 26/05/1998. The part of the land of the petitioner as narrated supra was shown in the Development Plan for DP Road, Green Belt and Yellow Belt. Thus, total 60R land out of the land of the petitioner was shown reserved in the Plan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per mandate of Section 127 of the Act of 1966, respondent Authority was under an obligation to purchase the land within 10 years from the publication of Development Plan. The said period of 10 years expired in the year 2008, but no steps were taken for acquiring the said land. Accordingly, on 20/12/2022, the notice asking the respondent No.2 to purchase the land was served along with all the necessary documents. Though the same was acknowledged, the respondent Authority neither replied the same nor took any steps for acquisition. It is in this background learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for declaration as stated above.
In pursuance with the notice issued by this Court, respondents have appeared and respondent No.2 has filed reply dated 13/07/2026 in which neither the date of Development Plan, nor the date of notice and receipt of the same was disputed by respondent No.2. The prayer was opposed by respondent No.2 on the ground that, if development of Pusad City commences in the near future as per the revised Development Plan and the land is de-reserved, it will be difficult for the respondent Authorities to acquire the said land. Except for this, no other ground was advanced.
In the aforesaid background, we have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective counsels. It is clear that the part of the land of the petitioner was shown reserved in Development Plan which came into force on 26/05/1998. The period of 10 years had lapsed in the year 2008, whereas the purchase notice was issued on 20/12/2022. The record shows that receipt of the notice was not disputed. The fact remains that, despite receipt of the purchase notice, no steps were taken by the respondents for acquisition of the land. As such it is clear that the reservation has lapsed under Section 127 of the Act of 1966.
In that view of the matter the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i). Accordingly, the respondent No.1 is directed to issue notification expeditiously. No order as to costs.