SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER
LAWS(SC)-2013-4-6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on April 01,2013

SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant
VERSUS
Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY V. DR. HAKIMWADI TENANTS' ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
POONA TIMBER MERCHANTS SAW MILL OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMJI DAWKHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHIVRAM KONDAJI SATHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MR.SIDDHARAM SHIVAPPA PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
PITAMBER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-123] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAMSINH JAYSINGRAO GHATGE VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANDAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
M.C. MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOK SINGH PAHLAJSINGH RAJPAL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS WSP LTD. VS. DIRECTORATE ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-130] [REFERRED TO]
DR RAMRAO SOPANRAO GONDKAR VS. NASIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE VINAYAK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-130] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD V.BHATT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
GANGUBAI MARUTI JADHAV(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIRS AND L.RS. VS. DATTATRAYA TUKARAM PHARANE(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND L.RS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-182] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA MOHANLAL CHAUHAN VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
POONA TIMBER MERCHANTS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-79] [REFERRED TO]. (PARA 13)]
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. AHMEDABAD GREEN BELT KHEDUT MANDAL [LAWS(SC)-2014-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KASHINATH S/O PUNDLIK PATIL VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-327] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANT VASUDEO PAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-239] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHANT SURESHRAO CHARJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-419] [REFERRED TO]
MANEK CULTURE CENTRE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-119] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA RAMESHWARDAS GINDODIYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
VANSADA AGRICULTURELS PVT. LTD. VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
MADANBAI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-206] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR NEWANDRAM BUDHWANI VS. CHIEF OFFICER VITA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2025-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
BHOPAL VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-216] [REFERRED TO]
UDAY MADHAVRAO PATWARDHAN AND ORS. VS. SANGLI, MIRAJ & KUPWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-1-233] [REFERRED TO]
MOTIWALA LAND AGENCIES VS. THESTATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTAB LAIQ AHMED SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHAR SADASHIV JAGTAP AND ORS. VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-231] [REFERRED TO]
GODITHI VEERA PRASAD VS. CHUNDRU SRINIVASU [LAWS(APH)-2024-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
MINAKSHI PRAMOD SONAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-4-150] [REFERRED TO]
B. K. RAVICHANDRA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2020-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED SHAFFI USMANSAHEB KOKANI VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
SAKHARAM MAHADEV JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-211] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KARBHARI BORADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-203] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI SHAKUNTLA THAKRAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-217] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL MALLIKARJUN PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-6-304] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GANI N WADWAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-371] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTARAM SHANKAR JAMSANDEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH PRAKASH ROHRA & ANR VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
F.E. DINSHAW TRUST & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2018-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
S R P OIL PVT LTD, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
GLOBAL WASTE RECYCLERS LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2024-4-77] [REFERRED TO]
TRISHUL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT SHRIPAT GOTRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-298] [REFERRED TO]
MADHOOR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-214] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. VASANT MAHADEV PATIL (DEAD) [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
CHHABILDAS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2024-1-260] [REFERRED TO]
DECD RAVJIBHAI NARSINHBHAI THRO HEIRS AND L R VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 [LAWS(GJH)-2015-12-258] [REFERRED]
KIRAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-1-276] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI. JIVAT KEVALRAM IDNANI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-60] [REFERRED TO]
SANTU SUKHDEO JAIBHAVE VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2022-11-39] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by the respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') will be deemed to have lapsed because the same were not acquired or no steps were commenced in that respect within six months of the service of notice under Section 127 of that Act.
(3.)For the sake of convenience, we shall first notice the facts from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 9934/2009.
3.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the owners in possession of the land comprised in Gat Nos. 44/1/2 and 44/1/4, CTS No. 2141 measuring about 2 hectares and 40 ares situated at Shrirampur Taluka, Shrirampur (Maharashtra).

3.2 In the Development plan prepared for Shrirampur under the 1966 Act, which was sanctioned by Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra vide order dated 9.8.1991 and enforced with effect from 31.10.1991, the land of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was shown as reserved for primary school and playground. However, the same was not acquired in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the 1966 Act read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act').

3.3 After eleven and a half years of the reservation of their land, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 issued purchase notice dated 29.5.2003 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, which was duly served upon the Chief Officer of the appellant Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur. The relevant portions of the notice are extracted below:

"PURCHASE NOTICE

UNDER SECTION 127

Date:- 29.5.2003

To,

Hon. Chief Officer,

Nagar Parishad, Shrirampur,

Dist. Ahmednagar

Reference:-Development Plan (R) Shrirampur approved

Subject:- Purchase Notice Under Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

We, the undersigned

1] Shrimati Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkhar, Age - 70, Occupation - Farming, House work,

2) Alka Shivaji Dawkher, age 47 years, Occupation - household 86 Agril

3) Sudhil Shivaji Dawkher, age 28 years, Occupation : Agril

4) Vijay Shivaji Dawkher, age 26 years, Occupation : Agril

5) Rushikesh Shivaji Dawkher, age 24 years, Occupation: Agril All R/o Mahadeo Mala, Shrirampur, Ward No. 7, Dist. Ahmednagar.

Hereby give notice under Section 127 of the above stated Act that, the land located within the city limits of Shrirampur out of Gat No.44 admeasuring approx. 2.5 Hectare is owned by me and it has been reserved as Reservation No.40 in Town Planning Scheme No.4. This reservation has been reserved approx. 1 Acre for play ground. The sanctioned Development Plan (R) Shrirampur of Shrirampur City has been granted final sanction by the Director, Town Planning (State) Pune vide their notification no. D. P. Shrirampur (Part) R/TPV 4-2837 Dated 31/12/91 and although more than 10 years duration has passed after getting the final sanction to the Development Plan the Nagar Parishad has taken no action to acquire the said land.

Through this notice you are being notified that, in case of your failure to take suitable action to acquire the said land within 6 months of the receipt of the said notice the land under reservation in Gat no. 44 shall become free from reservation. Please take note. The said notice is being issued in this behalf."

3.4 The notice issued by respondent Nos.1 to 5 was considered in the meeting of the General Body of the appellant held on 30.8.2003 and the following resolution was passed:

"It is seen from the note submitted on the above subject that the land bearing Gat No. 44, CTS No.2141 (part) within the Municipal Limit is owned by Smt. Satyabhamabai Davkhar, out of which 4815 sq.mtr. of area is reserved for Play Ground, vide reservation No.40 and for Primary School & Play Ground, vide reservation No.41. Since the Municipal Council has not acquired the land under said reservations after 10 years of sanction of Development Plan, the land owner Smt. Davkhar has served the purchase notice under section 127 of Maharastra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

The above referred lands are included in Town Planning Scheme No.IV. But the above reservations are not included in Draft sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No. IV. And hence the notice served by the owner is tenable and also if the land acquisition proposal is not submitted to the Collector within the period of Six months from the date of issue of notice the land will be released from reservations.

Therefore, by passing this Resolution the sanction is given to initiate the land acquisition process for the above two reserved sites. And accordingly the proposal should be submitted immediately to the Collector, Ahmednagar.

The expenses that would be required for the land acquisition and to take possession and the allied expenses are also hereby allowed."

3.5 In furtherance of the aforesaid resolution, the President of the appellant sent communication dated 24.12.2003 to Collector, Ahmednagar and requested him to take action for the acquisition of land comprised in Gat No. 44, CTS No. 2141 (part). The Collector sought clarification on some issues. The appellant did the needful vide letter dated 9.2.2004.

Thereafter, land was got measured through City Survey Officer and proposal dated 25.1.2007 was submitted to the Collector for its acquisition. The Collector passed order dated 17.4.2007 under Section 52-A of the 1894 Act and authorized Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur to take the necessary steps.

3.6 In the meanwhile, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed Writ Petition No. 4774/2006 for grant of a declaration that the reservation of their land stood lapsed in November, 2003 because the same had not been acquired within six months of the service of notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. In support of their plea, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 relied upon the judgment of this Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2007 7 SCC 555 (hereinafter referred to as 'Girnar Traders II') and of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shivram Kondaji Sathe and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009 2 AllMR 347.

3.7 The appellant contested the writ petition and pleaded that in terms of resolution dated 30.8.2003, a proposal had been sent to the Collector for the acquisition of land belonging to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and vide order dated 17.4.2007, the latter authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer to do the needful.

3.8 The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon the judgments in Shivram Kondaji Sathe and others v. State of Maharashtra and others and Satyabhamabai v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 1 AllMR 399 as also the judgment of this Court in Girnar Traders (II) and held that reservation of the land in question will be deemed to have lapsed because no steps were taken for acquisition thereof within six months of the receipt of purchase notice. The High Court also directed the appellant to de-reserve the land so as to enable the respondents to develop the same.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.