Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1171 (BOM)

Niranjan v. State Of Maharashtra

2022-04-22

M.S.JAWALKAR, SUNIL B.SHUKRE

body2022
JUDGMENT Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The portion of the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 33, having total area of above 4.66 H.R., Village Katol, is under reservation No.119 for housing scheme and 24 Meters development plan road. This reservation was imposed on the land of the petitioner in the development plan of the year 2008, which came into force with effect from 15/12/2008. 4. The petitioner's land, even after expiry of ten years and more, was not acquired by the respondents nor any steps were taken for acquiring the land in question by the respondents. The petitioner being interested to make proper use of the land, issued a notice on 04/01/2019 calling upon the respondents to purchase the land as per the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning act within the stipulated period of two years, failing which, the deemed lapsing of reservation would occur. This notice was received by the respondent No.4 on 07/01/2019. 5. From reply of respondent No.4, it appears that this notice was indeed received by the respondent No.4 and that is the reason why respondent No.4 took it's cognizance and passed a resolution on 07/06/2019 for taking steps for acquiring of the said land as per law. This Resolution, bearing No.29, however was not implemented and no proposal whatsoever was sent to the Collector, Nagpur for taking steps for acquiring the subject land as per the provisions of law. 6. Now, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that as Covid- 19 Pandemic was going on, the respondent No.4 could not initiate any step for acquisition of the subject land. He submits that the Supreme Court, in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3/2020 taking cognizance of prevailing of Covid-19 pandemic, had extended limitation period for every judicial and constitutional proceeding including the proceedings in arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 and other relevant laws and therefore, such extension granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court could also be applied to the period of two years given to the beneficiary under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning act for taking steps for acquiring lands. 7. 7. The argument cannot be accepted for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had only extended limitation period and not the period which was statutorily prescribed for doing of particular acts as mentioned in various statutes including the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning act. In the case of Dinesh Lildadhar Chandak Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 2270/2021 decided on 08/04/2022 by Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Coordinate Bench has taken a view that in so far as Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning act is concerned, there is no question of granting extension of time to acquire the land. While taking this view, the Division Bench drew support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Civil appeal No.1965/2022 decided on 23/03/2022, wherein while reiterating the decision rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the Hon'ble apex Court has held that when the statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the act and additional one year (now two years) is granted to land owners to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment act No.XLII of 2015, the timeline has to be treated as sacrosanct and it must be adhered to by the State or the concerned authority under the statue. Therefore, no extension of time as prescribed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning act is permissible in law and the timeline prescribed thereunder being sacrosanct, must be followed scrupulously by the State Government or the authority under it. Same view has been taken in the case of Jayantilal Himmatlal Oswal Vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2021 (6) Mh.L.J. 347. Thus, the argument made on behalf of respondent No.4 in this regard, is rejected. 8. In the result, we find that this petition deserves to be allowed and it is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses a and B. The notification under Section 127 (2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning act shall be issued within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.