1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2565 OF 2010 1. Dagulal s/o Raman Suryawanshi, Age 58 years, Occ. Agri., 2. Bhaskar s/o Raman Suryawanshi, Age 48 years, Occ. Agri. 3. Suresh s/o Raman Suryawanshi, Age 45 years, Occ. Agri. 4. Smt. Mathibai Raman Suryawanshi, Age 78 years, Occ. Household, All r/o Taloda, Taluka Taloda, District Nandurbar ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The Sate of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Urban Development Department Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. (Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Assistant Director, Town Planning, Nandurbar. 3. The Municipal Council, Taloda, Taluka Taloda, District Nandurbar through its Chief Officer ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Shri A.G. Magare, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 12th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus for declaring that the reservation of land bearing Gat No.62 to the extent of 0.54 Ares (5395.59 sq.mtrs.), situated within the Municipal limits of Taloda, District Nandurbar as Site No.13 for garden in its revised development plan, be released from reservation and the petitioners are at liberty to develop and enjoy the property. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to notify the lapsing of the reservation of the aforesaid site in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus : 3 The development plan for Taloda Municipal Council came to be sanctioned by the State Government through its Urban Development Department by notification dated 2.12.1965 and the development plan came into force with effect from 1.4.1966. Subsequently, on 1.8.1966, a revised development plan came to be sanctioned by notification dated 16.6.1986 and the same came into force with effect from 1.8.1986. Under the revised development plan, Site No.13 out of land Gat No.62 belonging to the petitioners was shown as reserved for garden. The Municipal Council did not acquire the land nor took any steps for acquisition within 10 years from the date of the revised development plan coming into force. On 14.1.2009, the petitioners served the respondent No.3 Municipal Council with a purchase notice. It appears that, despite the receipt of the purchase notice no positive steps towards acquisition of the said land were taken by the Municipal Council and on the contrary, the Municipal Council, in its meeting of the General Body, passed a resolution on 11.6.2009 not to acquire the aforesaid land of the petitioners at Site No.13 on account of paucity of funds and accordingly, the decision of the Municipal Council came to be conveyed to respondent No.2. The petitioners have thus filed the present petition averring therein that despite the lapse of 10 years from the date of the revised development plan, the Municipal Council has 4 not taken any steps within the period specified under the Act for taking effective steps for acquisition of the land of the petitioners. It is also averred that, despite the receipt of the purchase notice, no acquisition proceedings had been initiated by the respondent Municipal Council. It appears that the respondent No.3 Municipal Council forwarded the proposal on 18.11.2009 to respondent No.2 seeking permission for the petitioners to develop the said land. Meanwhile, on 30.11.2009, the respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 Municipal Council to take steps for acquisition of the land on or before 13.1.2010 by virtue of the amended provisions of Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The Municipal Council again informed respondent No.2 by communication dated 5.3.2010 about its inability to acquire the land, and sought permission for the land to be developed by the petitioners. 4. The respondent No.3 Municipal Council has filed its affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit-in-reply, in no uncertain terms, it is stated by the respondent No.3 Municipal Council about its inability to acquire the aforesaid land on account of paucity of funds at its end. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-reply have contended that, despite several directions to respondent No.3 Municipal Council about acquisition of the land, no steps have been taken by respondent No.3 Municipal Council for acquisition of the land. 5 5. The position of law as it emerges is that, despite the receipt of the purchase notice, respondent No.3 Municipal Council has not taken any effective steps for acquisition of the land either within the period under the unamended Section 127 of even under the period specified by virtue of the amended provisions of the Act and the period of one year has already expired from the date of receipt of the purchase notice. In fact the Municipal Council in no uncertain terms has expressed its inability to acquire the aforesaid land on account of paucity of funds since the Municipal Council is unable to acquire the land and the period specified under the Act has already lapsed, we allow this petition in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) to the petition with no order as to costs. 6. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)