DIPANKAR DATTA,C.J. - (1.)This writ petition is directed against a communication dated December 24, 2018 issued by the Town Planning Authority and Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Khamgaon (hereafter "the Chief Officer"). The said communication, issued in response to a purchase notice dated February 9, 2018 issued by the petitioners refers to objections raised by Shri Shashimohan Shyamsunder Tapadia and two others (hereafter "the private respondents") and conveys to them that since there is a dispute regarding ownership and boundaries of the plot in question, the purchase notice cannot be entertained. Copy of the objection of the private respondents was enclosed with the communication.
(2.)It is not in dispute that the revised Development Plan of Khamgaon city was published in the Official Gazette on September 30, 1993 and came into force from November 1, 1993 as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter "the MRTP Act"). In terms of such development plan, Survey No. 123, Khamgaon has been reserved for a children's park. The petitioners claim to be the owners of a piece and parcel of land measuring .35 R out of Survey No. 123 (hereafter "the said land"). Such ownership is claimed by reason of purchase of the said land from the erstwhile owners. It also their claim that the relevant entry in the 7/12 extract is proof of the petitioners' ownership in respect of the said land. Since the reservation was not given effect to despite lapse of more than 10 years, the petitioners by their notice dated February 9, 2018 called upon the Municipal Council to purchase the said land or to acquire the same. It was in pursuance of such a notice that the impugned communication came to be made.
(3.)Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for the petitioner to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2018 (4) Mh. L.J. 454 : Abdul Gani N. Wadwan vs. State of Maharashtra and others to support the contention that sec. 127 of the MRTP Act does not require the sender of the notice to produce documents of title but documents showing title would be sufficient and that entries in the 7/12 extract would constitute sufficient material to come to the conclusion that such notice sender is the person interested in the land, even if he is not the owner thereof. On the basis of the aforesaid decision, it is contended by Mr. Sharma that the relevant entry in the 7/12 extract in respect of the said land would have been sufficient to demonstrate the interest of the petitioners therein and, if only the Chief Officer had granted an opportunity of hearing to them, the petitioners could have persuaded him to entertain the purchase notice upon overruling the objection of the private respondents.