Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 958 (BOM)

Gajanan v. Sub-Registrar Class-I, Karanja Ghadge

2015-04-09

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, S.B.SHUKRE

body2015
JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Petitioners/land owners are before this Court questioning the communication dated 22.1.2015 sent by respondent No. 1 refusing to register the sale-deeds of plots in their layouts. The petitioners have 83 plots in one layout and 33 in another layout. Advocate Sohoni submits that the layouts have been sanctioned in accordance with law by the competent authority and in-charge Land Acquisition Officer, Wardha, and also Rehabilitation Officer, Wardha. They also gave necessary No Objection on 16.3.2013. 2. Advocate Sohoni is placing reliance upon language of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 (for short MIDC Act) to submit that provisions of Chapter VI of the said Act have still not come into force in said area and as there is no notification bringing into force that chapter, the refusal to entertain the documents for registration by respondent No. 1 is unjustified. He has invited our attention to Rule 19 of the rules framed by State Government in terms of Section 109 read with Section 112 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. According to him, those rules expressly save layouts of the petitioners from such bar. The judgment of Division Bench reported at 2009 (2) ALL MR 347 (Shivram S/o. Kondaji Sathe & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors.) is pressed into service to substantiate the contentions. 3. Learned AGP for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Advocate Sonak for respondent No. 3 have opposed the petition. They invite attention to Gazette notification dated 3.2.2010 and provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 1. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench reported at 2014(1) ALL MR 260 (Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde & ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & ors) is also pressed into service to submit that notification under Section 1(3) is equivalent to Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. The provisions of Rule 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Maharashtra) Rules, 2014 are about saving of land acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and earlier Acts. Here, according to petitioners, such proceedings are still not yet initiated, as such, it is not necessary for us to consider the provisions of Rule 19 in the light of arguments advanced. 5. Here, according to petitioners, such proceedings are still not yet initiated, as such, it is not necessary for us to consider the provisions of Rule 19 in the light of arguments advanced. 5. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Shivram S/o. Kondaji Sathe & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors., supra, in paragraph 6, looked into provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It has been found that said provisions no where prohibit the sale of land which is reserved under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. It is obvious that the provisions of MIDC Act did not fall for consideration before the Division Bench. 6. The later Division Bench judgment in Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors., supra, considered the provisions of Section 1(3), 31 and 32 of MIDC Act and then held that the notification under Section 1(3) is equivalent to notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act. This observation appears in paragraph 15 of the said judgment. 7. The provision of Section 31 stipulates that provisions contained in Chapter VI of MIDC Act apply to such areas from such dates as have been notified by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 1. Section 32 relates to compulsory acquisition of land. We are not required to consider the scheme of Section 31 or 32 in the present matter. 8. Section 1 appears in very first Chapter which is titled Preliminary. Sub-section (1) gives name of Act, while sub-section (2) extends it to the whole of the State of Maharashtra. Sub-section (3) in so far as relevant portion is concerned, is in two parts. By first part, the Legislature has prescribed that except Chapter VI, the MIDC Act, 1961 comes into force in entire State at once. Thus, the Act comes into force after it's assented to and no separate notification for bringing it into force is required. Later part of sub-section (3) speaks of Chapter VI. It stipulates that Chapter VI shall take effect in such area from such date as decided by the Government from time to time in that behalf. The petitioner is not contending and has not contended that MIDC Act, 1961 has been brought into force on 3.2.2010. Later part of sub-section (3) speaks of Chapter VI. It stipulates that Chapter VI shall take effect in such area from such date as decided by the Government from time to time in that behalf. The petitioner is not contending and has not contended that MIDC Act, 1961 has been brought into force on 3.2.2010. The Gazette notification dated 3.2.2010 also essentially refers to later part of Section1 sub-section (3) having bearing on Chapter VI. Otherwise, there is no need to issue any notification under sub-section (3) of Section 1. Hence, the notification dated 3.2.2010 is under Section 1 sub-section (3) and about its later part, i.e. about bringing into force Chapter VI only. Said notification also expressly mentions Chapter VI. It is, therefore, apparent that Chapter VI has been brought into force from 3.2.2010 itself. The contention that there has to be separate notification for bringing into force the said provisions of Chapter VI is unsustainable. 9. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition. Petition is accordingly rejected. No costs.