Narendra S/O. Dharnidhar Gandhi vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... 2022 Latest Caselaw 1105 Bom

Bombay High Court Narendra S/O. Dharnidhar Gandhi vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 31 January, 2022 Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare WP.35.22.J 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. ... WRIT PETITION NO. 35/2022 * Narendra s/o Dharnidhar Gandhi Aged about 56 years, occu: Business R/o 40, Balaji Nagar, Nagpur. ..PETITIONER versus 1) State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Urban Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Municipal Council, Katol Through its Chief Officer, Katol,Dist.Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS .................................................................................................................. Mr M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for petitioner Ms.Sangeeta Jachak, Asst.Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1 Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent no.2 ................................................................................................................ CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATED : 31st January, 2022. ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. The reply filed by respondent no.2-Municipal Council, Katol is categorical. In Paragraph 3, it is stated that the issue in question was taken up in the General Body meeting of the Municipal Council, WP.35.22.J 2 Katol as subject No.12 on 19.03.2021 and in this meeting, after discussion, it was unanimously resolved that the subject land which is currently reserved for the purposes of Primary School and Secondary School should not be acquired and this fact should be intimated to the land-owner. This reply is well-supported by copy of the Resolution bearing No.12/2021 which is at page 33. 4. It is, thus, clear that the subject land is not proposed to be acquired by the Municipal Council-respondent no.2, under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. Besides, there is no dispute about receipt of notice by respondent no.2 which is a purchase notice by respondent no.2, u/s. 127 of the MRTP Act. These facts would entail this Court to allow this petition by issuing necessary directions. 5. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). We direct that lapsing of the land shall be published accordingly by seeking necessary approvals within three months from the date of this order. 6. Rule in above terms. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE sahare Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE Location: Signing Date:31.01.2022 15:28