Title: Gopal Kashinath Lad (Kele) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Decided on: 22.08.2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 10044 OF 2018
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
Facts of the Case
The case revolves around a land acquisition dispute. The said property was owned by Tukaram Bhai and others. This property was marked for Children’s playground. Later, Tukaram Bhai executed a Notarized Power of Attorney in favour of Rajendra Vasantrao Sonar. Mr. Sonar issued a purchase notice on 29/12/2000 u/s 127 of the MRTP Act claiming to be the owner of the petition land and referred to this notarized Power of Attorney. Thereafter, on 15/06/2001, the Respondent No. 4 Municipal Council Dhule submitted a proposal to the collector for acquisition of land pursuant to the purchase notice. Therefore, the development authority acted upon the purchase notice. However, the Respondent No. 4 has not taken step to acquire the land within the period of 24 months, therefore, the reservation lapses and the land is free from acquisition.
The Respondents pray for the dismissal of petition. Mr. Sonar had not shown a copy of power of attorney nor the 7/12 extract to show that, on the day of issuance of purchase notice his name was mutated with the revenue record. Thus, the current petitioners have no relation with the disputed land. The current petitioners purchased the land in 2006 under sale-deed from the original owner Shenphadu Bhoi and others. However, the petitioner prayed for the release of land from reservation on the basis of notice dated 29/12/2000 issued by Mr. Rajendra Sonar, the Power of Attorney holder, who was the owner and in possession of the land. Further, the present petitioner never issued purchase notice after execution of registered sale deed dtd. 11/07/2006 in his favour.
In the Second development plan, the disputed site again got reserved for a children’s playground. The petitioners claim for the lapse of reservation u/s 127 of MRTP Act. The Respondents claimed that if the person who issued the notice under Sec. 127 of the Act, fails to establish his title, interest, possession over the reserved land under the development plan and as such said notice found defective, it does not create right in his favour. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that, the petitioner stepped into shoes of the original owner.
Decision:
After examining the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, the court found that when objections for the second development plan were called neither the Petitioner nor the erstwhile owners raised any demand for deemed de-reservation of the petition property. In the year 2005, second revised plan was published, but no objection was received for reservation of the land for children’s playground. After lapse of 17 years from service of notice, reservation of petition land does not lapse under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act.
The petition was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law
