Bom HC: Person Cannot be Deprived of Right to Sleep by Recording Statements at Unearthly Hours  ||  Supreme Court: Enable E-Filing & Virtual Appearance Facilities At UP District Courts  ||  Supreme Court: Regulations of University Grants Commission are Binding on Universities  ||  Ker. HC: Assessment Order Quashed on Finding that Assessee Not Provided Effective Hearing  ||  Bom. HC: All Necessary Measures to be Taken to Prevent Law & Order Breach During Ram Navami Rally  ||  Del. HC: False Accusation of Child Abuse More Painful than Rigours of Trial and Imprisonment  ||  Supreme Court: Actual Statement Made by Person in the Court is Evidence Before Court  ||  Bombay HC: Court Setting Aside Magistrate's Order for Police Investi. Won’t Lead to Quashing of FIR  ||  SC: Evidence by Power of Attorney Holders Can Only be Given of Facts Within Their Personal Knowledge  ||  Delhi High Court: Compensation Can be Awarded on Guesswork When it is Difficult to Prove Loss    

Chetan and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:9242-DB) - (High Court of Bombay) (27 Feb 2024)

Owner cannot be deprived of his rights to the property after the statutory period has expired



By present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to issue a notification in the Official Gazette as per Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act") that, the reservation for a 'Stadium' on the Petitioners' land has lapsed and the said land is available to the Petitioners to develop.

If the land reserved for any purpose specified in any plan under the MRTP Act is not acquired by agreement as provided under Section 127 then the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development.

In the present case, the Respondents have not denied the stated facts. It is apparent that almost 20 years have lapsed since the reservation was sanctioned. As held in Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., an owner cannot be deprived of his rights to the property after the statutory period has expired. In the present case too, it is admitted that no steps were taken to acquire the land as contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act.

No steps as contemplated in law have been taken till date. The property cannot be held under reservation without acquisition in perpetuity. The owner cannot be denied the right to enjoy the fruits of development or compensation. The Respondents have clearly failed in performing their duty. Reservation bearing site has lapsed and the said land is available to Petitioner for the purpose of development or otherwise, as is permissible. The State is directed to issue a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act and publish the same in official Gazette with respect to lapsing of reservation.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved