Bombay High Court Allows Landowners' Petition for Mandamus in Town Planning Acquisition Case — State Directed to Issue Declaration Under Section 126(2) MRTP Act for Playground Reservation. Failure to Complete Acquisition Despite Deposit of Compensation Entities Landowner to Writ of Mandamus Under Section 126(4) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, owners of land bearing Revision Survey No.138 admeasuring 3 Hectares and 65 Ares in Kolhapur, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra and the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation to issue a declaration under Section 126(2) read with Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for acquisition of 10,000 sq. mtrs. of their land reserved for a playground under the sanctioned development plan. The petitioners had served a notice under Section 49(1) of the MRTP Act on 8 March 2010, which was confirmed by the State Government on 6 September 2010. Within the time prescribed under Section 49(7), the fifth respondent (Municipal Corporation) applied to the District Collector for initiation of acquisition proceedings. The State initiated acquisition, and the Municipal Corporation deposited Rs.8,51,91,480 with the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, no further steps were taken, and the fourth respondent called for additional deposit on 6 May 2015. The petitioners filed the writ petition seeking a direction to issue the declaration under Section 126(2) and (4) of the MRTP Act. The Municipal Corporation filed a reply stating financial constraints and offering Transferable Development Rights (TDR) instead of compensation. The petitioners declined TDR. The court considered the statutory scheme under Sections 125 and 126 of the MRTP Act, as amended by Maharashtra Act No.XLII of 2015, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court held that once the acquisition process has been initiated and compensation deposited, the State is duty-bound to issue the declaration under Section 126(2) read with Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act. The court rejected the argument of financial incapacity, stating that the statutory obligation cannot be avoided. The court directed the State to issue the declaration within a specified period and proceed with acquisition. The petition was allowed with directions.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - Reservation and Acquisition - Section 126 MRTP Act - Mandamus - Land reserved for playground under development plan - Landowner served notice under Section 49(1) MRTP Act, confirmed by State - Municipal Corporation deposited compensation amount - No declaration under Section 126(2) issued - Court held that once steps for acquisition are taken and compensation deposited, the State is bound to issue declaration under Section 126(2) read with Section 126(4) MRTP Act - Failure to do so entitles landowner to writ of mandamus - Held that the State cannot avoid its statutory duty by citing financial constraints or offering TDR (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State Government is obliged to issue a declaration under Section 126(2) read with Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for acquisition of land reserved for a playground, when the acquisition proceedings have not been completed within the statutory period despite deposit of compensation by the municipal corporation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to issue a declaration under Section 126(2) read with Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act within a specified period and proceed with acquisition in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Section 126 MRTP Act
  • Section 49 MRTP Act
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act 2013
  • Transferable Development Rights
  • Mandamus for acquisition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018:BHC-AS:21599-DB

Writ Petition No.4790 of 2018

2018-08-06

A.S. Oka, Riyaz I. Chagla

2018:BHC-AS:21599-DB

Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Tanaji Mhatungade and Mr. Ajinkya Udane for the Petitioners; Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate General a/w Mr. Akshay Shinde, Panel – B a/w Mr. A.B. Vagyani, G.P. and Mrs. Reena Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. Abhijit M. Adagule for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8.

Shri. Chandrakant Mahadev Patil and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking mandamus for acquisition of land reserved for playground under development plan.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State and Municipal Corporation to issue a declaration under Section 126(2) read with Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act for acquisition of their land.

Filing Reason

Failure of the State to complete acquisition proceedings despite notice under Section 49 and deposit of compensation by the Municipal Corporation.

Previous Decisions

Notice under Section 49(1) MRTP Act served on 8 March 2010, confirmed by State on 6 September 2010. Application for acquisition made by Municipal Corporation within time. Compensation of Rs.8,51,91,480 deposited. Further steps not taken.

Issues

Whether the State Government is obliged to issue a declaration under Section 126(2) read with Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act for acquisition of reserved land when acquisition proceedings have been initiated and compensation deposited. Whether financial incapacity of the Municipal Corporation or offer of TDR can excuse the statutory duty to acquire.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they are not interested in TDR and that the State must complete acquisition as per law. Respondents contended that due to financial constraints, the Municipal Corporation cannot pay compensation and offered TDR instead.

Ratio Decidendi

Once steps for acquisition under Section 126 of the MRTP Act have been taken and compensation deposited, the State is under a statutory duty to issue a declaration under Section 126(2) read with Section 126(4). Financial constraints or offer of TDR cannot defeat the landowner's right to acquisition.

Judgment Excerpts

On the earlier occasion, the parties were put to notice that the petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. As no concrete steps were taken for the acquisition, there is a prayer made in this Writ Petition for seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to issue a declaration under subsection (2) read with subsection (4) of section 126 of the MRTP Act.

Procedural History

Petitioners served notice under Section 49(1) MRTP Act on 8 March 2010, confirmed by State on 6 September 2010. Municipal Corporation applied for acquisition and deposited compensation. No further steps taken. Writ petition filed in 2018 seeking mandamus for declaration under Section 126(2) and (4).

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 49, 125, 126
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Landowners' Petition for Mandamus in Town Planning Acquisition Case — State Directed to Issue Declaration Under Section 126(2) MRTP Act for Playground Reservation. Failure to Complete Acquisition Despite Deposit of Compensa...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Advertising Contract Dispute. Court Upholds Award of Rs.29,51,000 with 12% Interest for Breach of Contract Relating to Free Commercial Time Banking Policy.