Jayesh Dhanesh Goragandhi vs Munincipal Corp.Of Gr.Mumbai & Ors

4. The Bombay Town Planning Act, 1919 was replaced by the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and the Borivali Municipal Council declared its intention to vary the scheme prepared earlier. Then Government of Bombay declared on 31.12.1956 the intention of the Municipal Council to vary the scheme. With effect from 01.07.1957, Borivali Suburban became a part of Greater Mumbai and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai became the Planning Authority for that area. On 30.11.1959 vide Resolution No. 1108, the Municipal Corporation declared its intention to vary the said scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. The Municipal Corporation vide its notification dated 10.12.1959 published its intention to vary the scheme. On 21.01.1961, the scheme was approved and published and original plot No.9 was renumbered as final plot No. 44. The Municipal Corporation on 16.12.1961 informed the 6th respondent Ranjit Hiralal that the above mentioned plot was reserved for public purpose. The Government of Maharashtra on 09.03.1962 sanctioned draft scheme (first variation) wherein the property in question was reserved for a public purpose. Later, an arbitrator was appointed under the Town Planning Act who served notice upon Smt. Jayantibai whose name was mentioned as owner of the property in the Property Register Card. Two of the legal heirs (who were plaintiffs in the suit) sent a representation to the Corporation to release their land from reservation.

5. The MRTP Act came into force with effect from 11.01.1967. The Corporation informed the legal heirs about the reservation of the property in question for public purpose. Ranjit Harilal, the 6th respondent along with his brother appeared before the Arbitrator on 03.01.1968 and filed a detailed statement on 08.02.1968 objecting the reservation of land for Municipal Offices. The Arbitrator by its order dated 10.04.1968 rejected the objections raised by the owner of the property. Later Smt. Jayantibai died on 11.01.1971. The Arbitrator gave the award under Section 72(3) (xviii) of the MRTP Act on 9.6.1973, confirming the proposal under draft scheme for reservation of the plot for the purpose of Municipal Office. The Town Planning Scheme for Borivali (II) (1st Variation) (final) was then published in the Government Gazette on 9.7.1973. Against the award of the Arbitrator dated 9.07.1973, an appeal was preferred by the respondents under Section 74 of the MRTP Act which was dismissed by the Tribunal. However, the rate of compensation was enhanced from Rs.15.60 to Rs.21.53 per sq. mtr. The Government of Maharashtra later sanctioned the final scheme on 17.07.1976 and the same was notified on 20.07.1976. The Town Planning Scheme as varied came into effect from 28.09.1976. The Corporation later sent a notice to the owners of the plot calling upon them to collect the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,17,918/- and the Ward Officer of the Corporation also issued notice under Section 89 of the MRTP Act calling upon the legal heirs to remove the structure from the property.

6. The legal heirs of Hiralal challenged the above mentioned notice, the award of the Arbitrator and the decision of the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition (C) 1084 of 1978 before High Court of Bombay. Writ Petition was, however, dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14.10.1981. Writ Appeal No. 530 of 1981 was preferred challenging the above mentioned judgment which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 03.12.1981.

7. The Corporation later issued a notice under Section 89 of the MRTP Act which was challenged by the legal heirs by filing a civil suit before the City Civil Court. The Court rejected the plaint on 28.3.1988 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground that under Section 149 of the MRTP Act, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The legal heirs then challenged the said order by filing Appeal No. 350 of 1988 before the High Court which was set aside and the suit was restored to the file to be heard and decided on merits. The City Civil Court vide its order dated 16/20.02.1995 decreed the suit in favour of the legal heirs and liberty was granted to the Corporation to take recourse to the proceedings under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act, particularly Section 126 for the purpose of acquisition of land.

77), two plots had been carved out - Final plot nos. 75 and 76. While the Final Plot no. 76 was allotted to the landlord in substitution of the original plot of land, the other final plot no. 75 was reserved for a school. The purpose of the school is a public purpose, and was reserved solely for the benefit of the owners and residents within the area of the scheme and hence, the cost of the said land became payable as compensation derived from the contribution levied by the Planning Authority and became part of the cost of the scheme.

(d) an estimate of the total cost of the scheme and the net cost to be borne by the Planning Authority;

(Emphasis supplied)

49. We find from the facts of the case that after completing the procedure under Chapter V, compensation was offered and paid to the appellant and the appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the Tribunal and therefore further acquisition of land under Section 126 does not arise. The High Court in our view has correctly interpreted the provisions of the Act which calls for no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.