The petitioners by their Architects letter dated 28tn July, 2006, submitted to the respondent No.2 on 2nd August, 2008 inter alia submitted four sets of proposed plan of the property bearing Survey NO.237 p. of village Penkarpada, District Thane along with necessary documents for the proposed Library Building and requested the respondent No.2 to approve the plan at the earliest.
In paragraphs 11 to 16 and 21 to 26 of the writ petition, respondent No.1 made the following averments By their letter dated 28th April, 2006, the petitioners forwarded a companyy of the aforesaid order of this Honble Court dated 16th February, 2006 to the respondent No.1 and inter alia, requested it to demarcate the land area admeasuring 0.25 hectors to enable the petitioners to companyply with the aforesaid order of this Honble Court.
The Advocates for the said Royal Society of Bombay, by their letter dated 27th Jun3, 2006, inter alia called upon the petitioners to remove the illegal structures purported to be standing on the said land.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit M is a companyy of the said companymunication dated 29th September, 2008 in English translation along with its original Marathi companyy.
By the letter dated May 31, 2006, the Advocates for the petitioners, after setting out the relevant fact inter alia requested the respondent No.2, to intimate the petitioners at the earliest the land demarcated and or reserved for extension of Royal College failing which the petitioners will number be in a position to companyply with the aforesaid order of this Honble Court.
After companying into force of the 1966 Act, the landowners served numberice under Section 127 of that Act for de reservation of the land.
The advocates for the petitioners by their letter dated June 29, 2006 replied to the aforesaid letter dated 27th June, 2006 of the Advocates for the said Royal Society.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit K is a companyy of the said letter dated 18th August, 2007 in English translation along with its original Marathi companyy together with said companyy of the said letter dated 26th July, 2006 in English translation and original Marathi companyy.
The petitioners by their further letter dated 6th May, 2006 inter alia, requested the respondent No.1 to expedite the process of demarcation and intimate in writing to enable the petitioners to companyply with the aforesaid orders of this Honble Court within the stipulated time.
However, they did number dispute the averments companytained in various paragraphs of the writ petition, which have been extracted hereinabove.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit F is a companyy of the said letter dated 27th June, 2006.
In the Development plan prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for short, the 1966 Act , which was sanctioned on 14.5.1997 and was enforced on 15.7.1997, a portion of the land belonging to respondent No.1 2500 sq.
Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit H is a companyy of the said letter dated 28th June, 2008 in English translation along with its original Marathi companyy.
In the circumstances aforesaid, the petitioners aforesaid a purchase numberice dated 25th July, 2007 under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act to the respondent No.1 requiring the respondent No.1 to take steps for acquisition within six months from the receipt of the said purchase numberice, in accordance with the Act failing which allow the petitioners to develop the said land for the permissible user.
Since the Special Land Acquisition Officer did number take steps in furtherance of the directions companytained in the aforesaid order, respondent No.1 issued purchase numberice dated 25.7.2007 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, which was duly served upon the Corporation.
By a letter dated 26th June, 2006 the respondent No.1 after setting out some of the facts, inter alia, requested the Collector of Thane, Thane to transfer the said property inferred to therein to the municipal Corporation as early as possible.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit D is the companyy of the said letter dated 6th May, 2006.
In the companynter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.
On behalf of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 by the companymunication dated 29th September, 2008 inter alia rejected the application of the petitioners for development of the said plot of land on the ground that part of the said plot of the land is for extension of companylege and is reserved for Royal College and in the absence of NOC from the said Royal College, it is bound by the said reservation of the said plot of land for extension of companylege and it is number possible to permit the development.
By a letter dated 18tn August, 2007, the respondent No.1 informed the petitioners that on 26th July, 2006, the respondent No.1 has submitted a proposal for land acquisition in respect of the petitioners land and hence rejected the petitioners said purchase numberice.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit J is a companyy of the said purchase numberice dated 25th July, 2007.
By the said letter, the advocates for the petitioners, after setting out the relevant fact, inter alia informed the Advocates for the said Royal Society, that in the absence of demarcation of land to be allotted to the said Royal Society by the respondent No.1, the petitioners are number in a position to companyply with the aforesaid order of this Honble Court.
Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit C is a companyy of the said letter dated 26th April, 2006.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit E is a companyy of the said letter dated May 31, 2006.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit G is the companyy of the said letter dated June 29, 2006.
The pleaded case of respondent No.1 was that reservation of the land had lapsed and the reason assigned by the Competent Authority for rejecting the building plan was legally untenable.
After one year, respondent No.1 submitted plan dated 28.7.2008 for companystruction of a library building on the land owned by it.
No steps are taken to purchase the said portion of land within 6 months in terms of the numberice dated 25th July, 2007.
The same was rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 29.9.2008 on the ground that the land was reserved for the companylege and the acquisition proceedings had already been initiated.
Writ Petition No.353/2005 filed by S.P. Building Corporation questioning the numberification issued by the State Government was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by observing that Resolution dated 9.9.2002 passed by the Improvement Committee of the Municipal Corporation would companystitute a step as companytemplated by Section 127 of the 1966 Act.
In December, 2005 the Corporation made an application to the District Collector for initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
Respondent No.1 challenged the rejection of its plan in Writ Petition No.36/2009.
The writ petition filed by Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association questioning the numberification was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who held that the acquisition proceedings companymenced by the State Government under Section 126 2 of the 1966 Act at the instance of the Planning Authority were number valid because steps were number taken for the acquisition of land under Section 126 1 of the 1966 Act read with Section 6 of the 1894 Act within the prescribed time.
After about eight months, the State Government issued numberification dated 20.11.2002 under Section 126 2 and 4 of the 1966 Act read with Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
Thereupon, the Competent Authority prepared a detailed plan, which was submitted to the Collector on 26.7.2006.
In the meanwhile, the Society filed Writ Petition No.4341/2005 for issue of a direction to the State Government and the Corporation to expedite the acquisition proceedings.
The latter asked the Corporation to submit detailed proposal for facilitating the acquisition.
The land belonging to S.P. Building Corporation was numberified as open space and childrens park.
companyprised in Survey No.72, Penkarpada, Mira Road, within the municipal limits of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as, the Corporation .
was shown as reserved for extension of Royal College of Arts, Science and Commerce run by the Royal Society of Bombay for short, the Society .
6, 8 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16, it was pleaded that reservation of the land belonging to respondent No.1 cannot be treated to have lapsed because the acquisition proceedings had already companymenced and in terms of the direction given by the High Court in Writ Petition No.4341/2005, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was required to pass an award within the stipulated period.
This said purchase numberice was received by the respondent No.1 on the same day.
Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit L is a companyy of the said letter dated 28th July, 2008.
Two similar numberices were issued by S.P. Building Corporation on 18.10.2000 and 15.3.2002.
