- (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 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 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).
(2.)In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant Hasmukhrai Vanmalidas Mehta owns land in Survey No. 16, Hissa No. 3 and Survey No. 18, Hissa No. 4, situated in Village Sheel, Taluka Khopoli, District Raigad in the State of Maharashtra. On 14.02.1990, he applied to the Planning Authority seeking permission to carry out development of land with necessary documents as required Under Section 44 of MRTP Act. The Appellant was granted permission and issued commencement certificate dated 03.04.1990 by Respondent No. 4 (Chief Officer, Khapoli Municipal Council) Under Section 45 of said Act read with Section 89(4) of Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The Development Plan of Khopoli Municipal Council was sanctioned by the Government, vide Order No. TPS/1476/32/UD-5 dated 17.12.1976. It is pleaded on behalf of the Appellant that the land in question, belonging to the Appellant, was included in the residential zone in the sanctioned plan of 15.1.1977. It is further pleaded that on 15.7.1991, the Chief Town Planning Officer granted 'No Objection Certificate' for utilization of the land for non-agricultural purpose. From communication dated 15.7.1991, made by Respondent No. 4 it reveals that Development Plan for residential purpose was sanctioned, and commencement certificate was issued by him on 19.6.1992 for construction. Development charges amounting Rs. 1,92,490/- were also recovered from the Appellant by getting served notice dated 31.07.1998, for use of land for residential purpose.
(3.)However, on 14.1.1999 the Appellant was informed by the Respondent No. 4 that a fresh development scheme of Khopoli town has been prepared which includes Appellant's survey Nos. 16/3 and 18/4 as a part of land reserved for Agriculture Produce Market Yard (for short "APM Yard") and for Truck Terminal. Reacting to it, on 17.8.2000 the Appellant served a purchase notice Under Section 49 of the MRTP Act as the land in question was already in the sanctioned plan left in 1977 for residential purposes. In reply to this, Director, Town Planning, vide his communication dated 16.3.2001, though confirmed receiving of the purchase notice, but directed the Appellant to contact APMC, Khopoli. The Director, Town Planning wrote separate letter to Chief Officer of Municipal Council of Khopoli that the proceedings of land acquisition for APM Yard be initiated within one year from 16.3.2001 failing which it would amount to release of the land from the reservation for APM Yard. Consequently, Khopoli Municipal Council wrote a letter on 23.4.2001 to APMC to immediately initiate acquisition proceedings and to act on purchase notice served by the Appellant. The Appellant himself wrote a letter to Respondent No. 5 (APMC) requesting for initiation of acquisition proceedings. Another letter was sent on 6.7.2001 by the Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5 calling upon it to take necessary steps for acquisition of the Appellant's land. However, no steps were taken for one year, i.e., by 15.3.2001. Respondent No. 4 again reminded Respondent No. 5 between September, 2001 to March, 2002 to complete the acquisition proceedings. When nothing was done, the Appellant again on 5.7.2002 sought revalidation of the permission for construction earlier allowed to him. After running from pillar to post, the Appellant made a representation dated 13.2.2003 to the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra, on the above issue, but to no avail. Ultimately, the Appellant filed writ petition in February, 2004 complaining that the Respondents are neither acquiring land belonging to the Appellant nor releasing the same from reservation for APM Yard, and sought necessary directions from the High Court.