Krishna H. Sawant Vs. Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad City M.Corp  Insc 128 (23 February 2005)
Singh & Arun Kumar
for permission to submit additional document and urging addl.grounds and with
office report) Date: 23/02/2005 This appeal was called on for
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR For Appellant(s) Dr. N.m. Ghatate, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivaji
M. Jadhav,Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv.
Respondent(s) Mr.V.N. Ganpule, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Shinde, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K.Giri,
R-1 Mr.S.K. Nandy, Adv.
hearing counsel the Court made the following
appeal is allowed in terms of the signed judgment.
Dhingra) (Vijay Dhawan) Court Master Court Master [Signed judgment is placed on
the file] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL
APPEAL No.438 OF 2000 BALAKRISHNA H.SAWANT AND ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS SANGLI,MIRAJ &KUPWAD CITY M.CORPN.& ORS. Respondent (s) B.P. SINGH,J.
counsel for the parties.
appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 7th April, 1999 passed in writ petition No.1306/99 whereby the petition
preferred by the respondent Municipal Corporation was allowed and the
reservation recorded against the land belonging to the appellant herein upheld.
It appears that the Final Development Plan contained a reservation for a high
school and play ground recorded against the land owned by the appellant herein.
The grievance of the appellant was that the State had taken no steps to acquire
the land within the stipulated statutory period and, therefore, the reservation
had lapsed. The State also took a stand supporting the appellant that the
reservation had lapsed and further contended that it had power to condone the
delay which it had condoned. However, the High Court found that since the
Corporation had taken necessary steps to acquire the land in question so as to
give effect to the reservation, the reservation cannot be said to have lapsed.
It further held that the application of the appellant was barred by limitation.
Court granted special leave on 18th January, 2000. When we took up this appeal for hearing, it was brought to our notice
by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation that by its
resolution of 20th July, 2002 the Corporation had resolved to the effect that
the Corporation does not have sufficient financial resources to construct a
high school and play ground on the land in question, and since the matter is
pending before this Court the litigation may involve further expenditure. For
the aforesaid reasons the Corporation does not need the subject land and for
that purpose necessary proceedings at Government level may be initiated. It was
also resolved to bring this resolution to the notice of this Court. It appears
that subsequently a proposal was sought to be made by the Corporation to recall
its resolution of 20th
July, 2002. The said
proposal is dated 13th
May, 2003 but the
Government of Maharashtra rejected the proposal and refused to permit the
Corporation to revoke the earlier resolution.
communication of the Government of Maharashtra in this regard is dated 18th May, 2004.
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 a modification of the
Final Development Plan of a minor nature can be made by the planning authority.
It also enables the State Government to direct the planning authority to make
such modification, and on failure of the planning authority to carry out the
direction, the State Government may itself notify the proposed modification
inviting objections. It was, therefore, submitted before us that the procedural
requirements of the Act are such that they are bound to take time.
for the Corporation states that the resolution of July 20, 2002 stands and the
respondent Corporation is bound by it and holds itself bound even today,
meaning thereby, that the land shown as reserved in the Development Plan is not
required by the Municipal Corporation as it does not have the resources to
develop the said land and construct a high school and play ground over it. The
stand of the State Government even before the High Court was that the
reservation had lapsed. It is, therefore, apparent that the reservation will
serve no purpose except to cause harassment to the appellant without any
corresponding benefit to the respondent Corporation. Ultimately, the respondent
Corporation may not take any steps to get the land acquired, and in that event,
by efflux of time the reservation may again lapse.
view to avoid all these delays and complications, we quash the reservation in
respect of the land in question owned by the appellant and allow this appeal.
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is accordingly set aside and
the writ petition preferred by Respondent Corporation is dismissed.
will be no orders as to costs.