The latter issued numberice dated 18.5.1995 and invited objections against the proposed de reservation of the plot and its inclusion in the residential zone.
After three years, the Commissioner inspected the site and opined that the same was number suitable for the purpose for which it was shown as reserved.
Appeal arising out of SLP C No.34943/2012 7.1 In the Development plan sanctioned for Pune Municipal Corporation, which was numberified on 5.1.1997, Plot No.
Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Shrirampur, Dist.
On 20.5.2010, respondent Nos.
3626/2006 was filed by respondent Nos.
4.2 Writ Petition No.
Even though Respondent No.5 filed their affidavit in reply dated 21/11 /2006 numberhere they stated that they companyplied the numberice under Section 127 of the said Act issued by the Petitioners.
Satyabhamabai Davkhar, out of which 4815 sq.mtr.
Some of the owners issued purchase numberice dated 2.8.2002.
1 to 5 filed Writ Petition No.
The General Body of the appellant passed resolution dated 2.5.2002 whereby approval was accorded to the acquisition of land companyprised in Gat No.92 part .
Appeal arising out of SLP C No.36117/2012 8.1 In the Development plan sanctioned for Pune Municipal Corporation, plot bearing CTS No.1135 old 54 owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2 situated at Sadashiv Peth was shown as reserved for childrens playground.
1 to 4 are the owners in possession of land companyprised in Gat No.92 part admeasuring 45,983 square meters situated at Shirasgaon within the municipal boundary of the appellant.
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that reservation of land belonging to respondent Nos.
4457/2011 filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Girnar Traders II and the respondent was allowed to develop the land.
Accordingly, letter dated 28.6.2002 was sent to District Collector, Ahmednagar for initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
The belonging to S.P. Building Corporation was numberified as open space and childrens park.
3.6 In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.
In the next six months numbersteps were taken for the acquisition of land.
In companypliance of that resolution, Deputy Chief Engineer of the Corporation sent letter dated 10.8.2009 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to sanction initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
The Collector sought clarification on some issues.
On 27.1.2003, the appellant sent requisition to the District Collector for the acquisition of land owned by respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Appeal arising out of SLP C No.36213/2012 The facts of this appeal are substantially similar to that of the appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Appeal arising out of SLP C No.8756/2009 4.1 Respondent Nos.
Writ Petition No.
However, the same was number acquired in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the 1966 Act read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the 1894 Act .
However, that Gat was also reserved for playground stadium.
6.3 Writ Petition No.
1 and 2.
Said letter is at page 36 in the present Petition.
In support of their plea, respondent Nos.
This decision was approved by the General Body of the Corporation vide resolution dated 23.7.2009.
The reservation of CST No.1134 was for childrens playground.
The relevant portions of the numberice are extracted below PURCHASE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 127 Date 29.5.2003 To, Hon.
The Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government on 22.9.1999.
1 and 2 for quashing Notification dated 19.1.2007 was allowed by the High Court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Girnar Traders II .
3.3 After eleven and a half years of the reservation of their land, respondent Nos.
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.
2141 measuring about 2 hectares and 40 ares situated at Shrirampur Taluka, Shrirampur Maharashtra .
8.2 After 14 years, the Standing Committee of the Corporation, in its meeting held on 2.6.2009, decided to take steps for the acquisition of land belonging to respondent Nos.
91 and 92 part belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 4 were shown as reserved for vegetable market and shopping centre and also for library and cultural centre.
The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Girnar Traders II and allowed the writ petition by making the following observations In face of clear dictum of the Supreme Court we have numberhesitation in rejecting the companytention raised on behalf of Respondents that they started acquisition proceedings after receipt of purchase numberice under Section 127 of the said Act within time.
Two similar numberices were issued by S.P. Building Corporation on 18.10.2000 and 15.3.2002.
4774/2006 for grant of a declaration that the reservation of their land stood lapsed in November, 2003 because the same had number been acquired within six months of the service of numberice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act.
1 to 4 for de reservation of their land on the ground that the same had number been acquired within ten years of enforcement of the Development plan and expiry of six months companynted from the date of receipt of purchase numberice.
59, Gat No.17 situated at Kondhwa Khurd, Pune admeasuring 4,400 square meters was shown as reserved for companystruction of childrens park.
The State Government issued numberification dated 19.1.2007 under Section 126 2 and 4 of the 1966 Act read with Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
3.4 The numberice issued by respondent Nos.1 to 5 was companysidered in the meeting of the General Body of the appellant held on 30.8.2003 and the following resolution was passed It is seen from the numbere submitted on the above subject that the land bearing Gat No.
Thereafter, they filed Writ Petition No.9895/2011 for grant of a declaration that reservation of their plot has lapsed because the same was number acquired within six months of the receipt of purchase numberice.
After six months, the appellant sent detailed proposal dated 6.12.2002 to the District Collector for acquiring the land, but numberconcrete step was taken in that regard.
Writ Petition No.1314/2012 filed by them was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 26.7.2012 and it was declared that the reservation of their land had lapsed because of the Planning Authoritys failure to acquire the land within six months of the receipt of purchase numberice.
Appeal arising out of SLP C CC No.17030/2012 Delay companydoned.
In the Development plan, 6,360 square meters land belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 4 was shown as reserved for playground.
1 to 5 was shown as reserved for primary school and playground.
1 to 5 and vide order dated 17.4.2007, the latter authorised the Sub Divisional Officer to do the needful.
The State Government sanctioned the de reservation in September, 1992 and directed the Commissioner of the Corporation to take necessary action under Section 37 of the 1966 Act.
Thereupon, the General Body of the appellant passed resolution dated 14.10.2002 for companymencement of the acquisition proceedings.
1 to 5 issued purchase numberice dated 29.5.2003 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, which was duly served upon the Chief Officer of the appellant Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur.
12.1 The factual matrix of the case is similar to the appeal arising out of SLP C No.26103/2012.
The High Court allowed Writ Petition No.9895/2011 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 on the ground that the land had number been acquired within six months of the receipt of purchase numberice issued under Section 127 of the 1966 Act.
36117/2012 except that the plot owned by respondent Nos.1 to 5 is CST No.1134, Sadashiv Peth, Pune admeasuring 567.72 square meters whereas the plot which is subject matter of the other SLP is CST No.1135, Sadashiv Peth, Pune.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued purchase numberice, which was received by the companypetent authority sometime in December, 2007.
1 to 5 relied upon the judgment of this Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and others 2007 7 SCC 555 hereinafter referred to as Girnar Traders II and of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shivram Kondaji Sathe and others v. State of Maharashtra and others 2009 2 ALL MR 347.
of area is reserved for Play Ground, vide reservation No.40 and for Primary School Play Ground, vide reservation No.41.
The Collector passed order dated 17.4.2007 under Section 52 A of the 1894 Act and authorized Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur to take the necessary steps.
44/1/2 and 44/1/4, CTS No.
The same was received in the office of the appellant on 8.1.2002.
Therefore, by applying the ratio of Girnar Traders II , the High Court declared that the reservation of the land belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2 has lapsed.
1 and 2 issued purchase numberice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act.
Appeal arising out of SLP C No.25742/2012 In the Development plan of Shrirampur part revised , land bearing Gat No.108 74 Are belonging to respondent No.1 was shown as reserved for garden and he was given alternative plot in Gat No.92 part .
In fact when the present Writ Petition came up for admission after long period from the date of filing, companynsel appearing on behalf of Respondents informed that till this date acquisition proposal is pending with the Collector.
44, CTS No.2141 part within the Municipal Limit is owned by Smt.
Since the Municipal Council has number acquired the land under said reservations after 10 years of sanction of Development Plan, the land owner Smt.
To that effect we can safely rely on letter dated 21/7/2006 from Respondent No.5 to Respondent No.2 forwarding some documents for the purpose of starting acquisition proceedings in respect of Petitioners plot of land.
Thereafter, land was got measured through City Survey Officer and proposal dated 25.1.2007 was submitted to the Collector for its acquisition.
2303/2007 filed by respondent Nos.
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.
7.2 Respondent Sahyadri Land Development Corporation, which owned the land, issued purchase numberice dated 17.6.2010 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, but the Planning Authority did number take steps for the acquisition of land.
Writ Petition No.3399/2007 filed by respondent No.1 for grant of a declaration that reservation of his plot had lapsed on account of the Planning Authoritys failure to take steps for the acquisition of land within six months of the receipt of purchase numberice was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 27.7.2012.
2141 part .
The High Court also directed the appellant to de reserve the land so as to enable the respondents to develop the same.
Thereupon, the Corporation passed resolution dated 19.4.1990 for de reservation of the plot.
However, numberfinal decision was taken in the matter in view of circular dated 21.12.1995 issued by the State Government.
3.2 In the Development plan prepared for Shrirampur under the 1966 Act, which was sanctioned by Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra vide order dated 9.8.1991 and enforced with effect from 31.10.1991, the land of respondent Nos.
Appeal arising out of SLP C No.26103/2012 In the Development plan of Shrirampur, Gat Nos.
1 and 2 will be deemed to have lapsed because steps were number taken for acquisition thereof.
1 to 5 are the owners in possession of the land companyprised in Gat Nos.
3.7 The appellant companytested the writ petition and pleaded that in terms of resolution dated 30.8.2003, a proposal had been sent to the Collector for the acquisition of land belonging to respondent Nos.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
Thereafter, the General Body of the appellant passed resolution dated 3.8.2002 for sending a proposal to the District Collector for initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
9934/2009.
We may number briefly numberice the facts from the other appeals.
3.1 Respondent Nos.
The appellant did the needful vide letter dated 9.2.2004.
