LexHASMUKHRAI V MEHTA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014) 11 S.C.R. 377 HASMUKHRAI V MEHTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 1387 of 2008) DECEMBER 03, 2014 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] A B Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: s.49 rlw. s. 127 - Appellant-owner of suit land seeking directions from the High Court either to release his land from C reservation and to allow him to develop the properly for residential use or in alternative, to declare his land stood acquired for the purpose of Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Truck Terminal for which it was reserved - Held: Appellant cannot be deprived from utilizing his properly D for an indefinite period - Since no steps were taken by authorities for more than 20 years either for acquisition or for purchase of land under the Act, land released from reservation u/s.127 of the Act. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: In the instant case since neither steps have been taken by the authorities concerned for acquisition of the land, nor the land of the appellant is purchased under purchase notice, nor he is allowed to use the land for last more than twenty years, the land will have to be released as the appellant cannot be deprived from utilizing his property for an indefinite period. Inaction on E F the part of APMC and bonafide act of appellant are apparent from the documents on record. A perusal of G letter dated 15.7.1991 showed that the Municipal Council granted permission for demarcation of the plot in question and allowed that the plot be used by the appellant for residential purpose. Another document on 377 H 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A record was letter dated 23.4.2001 sent by the Municipal Council to the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, wherein it was expressly mentioned that if action of acquisition of land not started within time limit mentioned under MRTP Act, 1966, the Committee (APMC) would be 8 responsible for lapse of reservation of the land. Also, Report dated 21.4.2003 of Town Planning and Valuation Department addressed to the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department of State of Maharashtra showed that the Committee (APMC) and the State C Government were reminded of the fact regarding the requirement of acquisition proceedings and the fact that it was yet not known that any action for land acquisition was taken till the report was submitted or not. Necessity of early action was reiterated in the letter. However, no steps were taken for acquisition. Since no steps appear D to have been taken for last more than twenty years either for acquisition or for purchase of the land under MRTP Act, 1966 by the authorities concerned, as such, the land in question stands released from reservation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. [Paras 14, 15, 17) [388-H; E 389-A-F; 390-A-B] T. Vijayalakshmi and others vs. Town Planning Member and another (2006) 8 sec 502: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 534; Gimar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2007) 7 F SCC 555: 2007 (9) SCR 383 - referred to. G Case Law Reference: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 534 referred to 2007 (9) SCR 383 referred to Para 12 Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1387 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 17.07.2007 of the High Cour of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2266 of H 2004. • • HASMUKHRAI V. MEHTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 379 V.A. Mohta, Manoj V. George, T.V. George, Aakarsh A · Kamra, Siju Thomas, Devansh Mohta, Neelkanta Nayak, B.D. Das for the Appellant. Shankar Chillarge, Addi. Govt. Adv, Sonia Shankar Chillarge, Anirudha P. Mayee, S.R. Setia for the Respondents. 8 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 17'.7.2007 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has discussed the Writ Petition No. 2266 C of 2004, seeking direction either to release the appellant's land situated in Village Sheel, District Raigad in terms of Section 49 read with Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "MRTP Act"), from reservation and allow the appellant to develop the property for D residential use, or, in alternative, to declare the appellant's land stood acquired for the purposes of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short "APMC") and Truck Terminal (for which it . was reserved). E 2. In brief, factual matrix of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.