1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8443 OF 2003 1.Raj Kumar Chadha & another. ...Petitioners vs. 1.Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.S.P.Kanuga i/b. H.P.Vyas, for Petitioners. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent no.3. Mr.R.S.Desai, for Respondent no.1. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 3rd March,2008. 2 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioners who claims to be the owner of the suit land by virtue of conveyance dated 18.7.2000 claims a direction to the municipal corporation respondent no.1 to consider the building plan submitted by the petitioner, as if the land is not reserved for any public purpose under the sanctioned development plan. The admitted facts are that the final development plan was sanctioned in the year 1974; a major portion of the suit land is reserved for public purpose; on 15.5.2002 the petitioner served the respondent no.1 Corporation with a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town planning Act,1966. Even after receiving that notice, the respondent no.1 Corporation, did not take any steps to purchase the land. In this admitted position, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case “Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2007)7 Supreme Court cases 555”, the petitioners submit that so far as the land is concerned, the reservation has 3 lapsed and therefore, they are entitled to have their building plan considered by the Corporation on the footing that the reservation in the final development plan has lapsed. 2. Before us, on behalf of the Corporation two defences were raised viz. (i) that the land actually belongs not to the petitioner but to the Corporation and (ii) that it is the provision of Section 49 of the Act which will be applicable and not Section 127 of the Act and as per Section 49 of the Act without a notice to the State Government, the petitioners cannot claim that the reservation in relation to the suit land has lapsed. 3. So far as the first contention is concerned, there is a deed of conveyance executed by the sub- divisional officer in favour of the petitioners, a copy of which is at “Exhibit A” to the petition. Admitted position is that though a copy of the conveyance deed is annexed to the petition and the petitioner was served on the Corporation in the year 2003, till today admittedly the conveyance deed has 4 not been put under challenge in any proceedings. In our opinion, as the conveyance deed executed by the sub-divisional officer in favour of the petitioners, in so far as this petition in concerned, we will have to go by that conveyance deed. So far as the contention that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act are applicable is concerned, in our opinion, as the development plan was sanctioned in the year 1974 and the period of 10 years has expired since coming into force of the final development plan, it is section 127 of the Act which will apply and not section 49 of the Act. In this view of the matter therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- In case the petitioners submit a building plan for construction of a building on the suit land, the respondent no.1 Corporation shall process that plan and shall make order thereon in accordance with law considering that reservation in the final development plan of 1974 lapsed in view of the notice issued by the petitioners under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. 5 This order will not come in the way of the respondent no.1-Corporation challenging the conveyance of the land executed in favour of the petitioners. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) ---