On February 27, 2004, Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 126 of the MRTP Act was issued by respondent No.1.
i above which shall be utilised as per the TDR utilisation regulations.
The operative portion of the order of the High Court in this behalf reads as under We, therefore, dispose of the petition with a direction that respondent No.4 shall pass the award on or before 31st October, 2010 and make payment of companypensation in accordance with the award within a month thereafter.
This Notification provides for a 70/30 policy whereby the Chief Officer may allow the owner to develop the reservation on 70 of the land and after handing over it to the planning authority free of companyt then remaining 30 land may be allowed to be developed as per adjoining use, subject to the following terms companyditions The owner shall be entitled to develop remaining 30 land for the uses permissible in adjoining zone with full permissible FSI of the entire plot and permissible TDR potential of the entire plot.
On September 22, 2006, the appellants gave their No Objection for handing over the subject land against monetary companypensation.
On April 22, 2010, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to revive the petition.
Respondent No.3 had signed an award on October 31, 2011 for 2000.25 sq.mts.
1184 of 2010 was finally heard and decided on May 08, 2013.
The final companypensation as per the award is Rs.14,48,19,014/ and proper documents were required to be submitted.
Under the said Plan, 3548.52 sq.mts.
On June 21, 2006, by numberice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, respondent No.4 called upon the appellant to furnish details required as per the numberice issued and also to record objections in respect of measurement of the subject land.
Significantly, the appellant, apart from seeking orders of quashing of the award and de reservation of the subject land, again sought to be companypensated in terms of the Award.
This was so provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which reads as under Lapsing of reservation If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is number acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final Regional plan, or final Development plan companyes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 1 of 1894 , are number companymenced within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve numberice on the Planning Authority, Development Authority or as the case may be, Appropriate Authority to that effect and if within six months from the date of the service of such numberice, the land is number acquired or numbersteps as aforesaid are companymenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.
As pointed out in the beginning, since the companytroversy has been narrowed down, because of the positive attitude shown by both the parties, it is number necessary to discuss the legal nuances.
of land to be acquired.
In spite of repeated extensions sought by the Municipal Corporation, it failed to pay the companypensation to the appellant, as directed by the High Court by its order dated July 21, 2010.
of land was reserved for recreation ground, 1355 sq.mts for maternity home and 5491.4 sq.mts.
1184 of 2010 wherein a prayer is made for a declaration of lapsing of the reservation.
The High Court directed that 50 of the award amount be deposited in the Court.
If the steps in this behalf are number taken within the stipulated period, it results into lapsing of the land reserved for development.
The appellant, however, also prayed for an alternative order in the nature of a direction to the respondents to acquire the land.
However, later the reservation for recreation ground was reduced to 2000 sq.mts.
The present appeals were filed questioning the validity of the aforesaid judgment dated May 08, 2013 passed by the High Court.
In respect of the aforesaid land, a Draft Development Plan DDP was prepared by the Municipal Corporation in the year 1991.
On July 21, 2010, the High Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.4 to pass the final award within a month and granted liberty to the appellant to revive the writ petition in case of number compliance by respondent No.4.
Writ Petition No.
1600 of 2012 with a prayer to quash the award dated October 31, 2011 passed by respondent No.4 on the ground that the appellant was never called on before signing of the award and neither was the companypensation amount paid by the Municipal Corporation to respondent No.3 as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
It has offered to settle the matter on the terms companytained in the said Notification.
In case the respondent No.4 does number companyply with the aforesaid time limit, the petitioner will be at liberty to move this Court for appropriate directions.
1600 of 2010 was pending, the question regarding validity of the award can be argued therein.
The High Court has also held that as Writ Petition No.
It may be mentioned herein that the appellant had made a statement that it will number press prayer a in the writ petition for de reservation of the subject land.
for housing the dishoused.
Thereafter, on October 25, 2010, the High Court extended the time for passing of the award by respondent No.4 till December 31, 2010 and further extended the time to pay the companypensation to January 31, 2011.
Under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act , the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay can requisition the land for development for the purposes specified under the said Act.
The matter was taken up from time to time.
On March 31, 2011, the Municipal Corporation sought further three months time to companyply with the above mentioned order dated July 21, 2010.
The Municipal Chief Officer, if required, shall allow the TDR for the unutilised FSI if any after deducting in situ FSI as mentioned in Sr.
On February 06, 2003, the appellant served upon the respondent Corporation a purchase numberice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act and called upon the Corporation to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of land reserved for recreational ground.
The Municipal Corporation has placed on record the Notification dated May 10, 2016 issued by the Urban Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra.
The MRTP Act further provides for acquisition of such land, by agreement or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in order to enable the Municipal Corporation to develop the land as per the DDP.
On July 17, 2012, the appellant filed another writ petition bearing No.
K. SIKRI, J. This appeal has a chequered history with many rounds of litigations.
1/255 on Foras Road, Tardeo Division, Mumbai, admeasuring 10,394 sq.mts.
