Case Note & Summary
Four writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by a notification dated 1st December 2010 under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners, landowners from villages Waladgaon and Kokanwadi, Aurangabad, sought to quash the notification and subsequent notices. The lead petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6872 of 2011 owned land bearing Gat No. 53, part of which was reserved for Growth Center-1 in Waluj Township-4 under a draft development plan. The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) was appointed as Special Planning Authority for the area. The petitioners argued that after the constitution of the Aurangabad Metropolitan area in 2008 under the Maharashtra Metropolitan Planning Committees Act, 1999, the Special Planning Authority lost its power to acquire land, as only the Metropolitan Planning Committee could prepare a development plan. They further contended that compulsory acquisition could not exceed 25 percent of an owner's holding as per draft development plan clauses, and that the acquisition notification was published in newspapers with no circulation, vitiating the process. The respondents filed replies, and the court heard arguments. The judgment was reserved on 10th April 2012 and pronounced on 30th April 2012, with the court’s final decision not included in the available text.
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO. 6872 OF 2011
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (04) 13
Writ Petition No. 6872 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 6914 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 3120 of 2012, Writ Petition No. 1371 of 2012
A.S. Oka, Sunil P. Deshmukh
V.D. Sapkal, A.N. Kakade, A.V. Gondhalekar, D.R. Kale, A.S. Bajaj
Eknath s/o Punjaji Nawale & Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to land acquisition notification
Remedy Sought
Declaration that acquisition is illegal, alternative prayer to restrict acquisition to 25% of holding
Filing Reason
Notification under Section 126(4) of MRTP Act read with Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act issued for acquisition of petitioner's land for Growth Center
Issues
Whether after constitution of Aurangabad Metropolitan area, the Special Planning Authority can acquire land under the sanctioned development plan
Whether compulsory acquisition can exceed 25% of the land held by an owner
Whether publication of notification in newspapers without wide circulation vitiates the acquisition
Submissions/Arguments
Metropolitan Planning Committee alone can prepare draft development plan for metropolitan area
Sanctioned development plan under MRTP Act ceases to operate
Special Planning Authority cannot function
Acquisition limited to 25% of holding
Petitioner willing to surrender
No prescribed period for voluntary surrender
Notification published in obscure newspapers
Object to deprive awareness
Judgment Excerpts
In substance, the challenge in these petitions is to the acquisition proceedings initiated on the basis of the notification dated 1st December, 2010, issued under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
the said notification was published in Government Gazette dated 23rd December, 2010.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed writ petitions challenging acquisition notification dated 1-12-2010. Respondents filed replies. Court reserved judgment on 10-4-2012.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 126(4), Section 40(1)(b)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 6, Section 9(3)(4)
- Maharashtra Metropolitan Planning Committees (Constitution and Functions) (Continuance of Provisions) Act, 1999: Section 9
- Constitution of India: Article 243-P(c), Article 243-ZE
