MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI Vs. HIRAMAN SITARAM DEORUKHAR
LAWS(SC)-2017-8-217
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 24,2017

Municipal Corp. Of Greater Mumbai Appellant
VERSUS
Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. VASANT MAHADEV PATIL (DEAD) [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIKANT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-72] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The facts in short giving rise to the present appeal indicate that way back in the year 1967 the disputed property was reserved for a garden in the development plan, prepared under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short 'the MRTP Act'). The said development plan was revised in the year 1991-1992. The reservation of the disputed property was further continued for the purpose of a garden. On 5.10.1992, the respondent No's 2 to 12 and deceased named Sitaram V. Deorukhkar entered into an agreement for sale dated 5.10.1992, in favour of respondent No. 13. On 18.10.1992, the power of attorney had been executed in favour of respondent no. 13 to institute a suit in relation to the property. Power of attorney served a notice for purchase under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 25.07.2007. The Municipal Corporation gave its approval to initiate the purchase proceedings of the land. On 19.10.2007, Improvement Committee, passed resolution No. 126 and recommended to the corporation to acquire the land of Village Borivali reserved for public purpose i.e. for the garden. On 21.01.2008, a proposal was submitted to the collector for the acquisition of the land in question. Thus the Corporation submitted that it had taken the effective steps within six months from the date of the purchase notice for an acquisition of the land as per the then prevailing time limit. On 25.2.2008, the Petitioner- Attorney had been informed that his application for permission to allow development on land under reference could not be considered under the provisions of the MRTP Act. Consequently, a writ petition was preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 in the High Court i.e. W.P. No. 2535 of 2008. Prayer made in the writ petition was that the reservation may be quashed and set aside as it had lapsed, and permission may be given to them to develop the said property in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. The High Court by the impugned order held that the reservation had lapsed, and that the land is deemed to have been released from the reservation, and that the area reserved for the garden has become available to the owner thereof for the purpose of development. Hence the Corporation has preferred the appeal.;


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