After the Resolution was passed, on 17.9.2002 document number4 a letter was written by the Chief Engineer Development Plan to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra informing that the Corporation have accorded sanction to initiate acquisition proceedings and for the said purpose authorized the Municipal Commissioner to make an application to the State Government as per the provisions of Section 126 1 of the MRTP Act as amended upto date to issue orders for acquisition of the property under the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the LA Act.
The letter dated 17.9.2002 is reproduced herein To, The Secretary, Urban Development Dept.,
The rates for acquisition under the LA Act and that under the provisions of Section 126 1 of the MRTP Act were also provided for.
The Division Bench relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Another v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh and Others, 1995 Supp.
On 18.10.2000, the appellants again served purchase numberice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
The purchase numberice was served on the Municipal Commissioner, Greater Mumbai on 19.3.2002.
Thereafter, on 16.9.2002 document number3 the Corporation passed Resolution No.956 whereby sanction was given to initiate the acquisition proceedings of the land and the Municipal Commissioner was authorised to make an application to the State Government under the provisions of Section 126 2 4 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the LA Act, as amended upto date and or, initiate proceedings under Section 90 1 3 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as amended upto date, for the land being purchased by the Commissioner on behalf of the Corporation.
The plan was submitted by the Corporation to the Government of Maharashtra for sanction on 8.7.1964 and on 6.1.1967 the Government of Maharashtra accorded sanction to the development plan which pertained to D Ward of the Corporation area and the plan came into force on 7.2.1967.
The appellants filed this appeal by way of S.L.P. C No.
The land of the appellant was numberified for development as Open Space and Childrens Park.
The application to State Govt.
approximately 4504.52 sq.mt.
Later on a revised development plan sanctioned by the State Government on 6.7.1991 came into effect on 16.9.1991.
13.9.2002 companyy enclosed .
of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 Sub Acquisition of land bearing C.S.No.18738 of Malabar Hill division reserved for Children Park.
Proceedings were taken up for acquisition of the land.
In reply, the Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai informed the appellants that purchase numberice issued by their advocates was invalid as ten years had number expired since the sanction of the revised development plan, came into force on 16.9.1991.
13.9.2002 Sir, With reference to above, it is to be mentioned here that Corporation by their Resolution No.
On 13.9.2002 document number2 without there being any resolution sanctioning acquisition or taking steps for acquisition, an application was sent by the Chief Engineer Development Plan to the State Government for initiating acquisition proceedings under Section 126 of the MRTP Act as amended upto date read with Section 6 of the LA Act.
On 15.3.2002, the appellants addressed yet another numberice to the Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai under Section 127 of the MRTP Act stating therein that ten years period had lapsed on 16.9.2001 and since numberproceedings for acquisition of the land as companytemplated under Section 127 1 of the MRTP Act or under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 hereinafter referred to as the LA Act having been companymenced number has any award been made or companypensation paid, the property should be de reserved.
On 9.9.2002 document number1 , the Improvement Committee passed Resolution No.183 recommending the Municipal Corporation to initiate the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of Section 126 2 and 4 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the LA Act, as amended upto date, or in the alternative to recommend acquisition as provided under Section 126 1 of the MRTP Act.
The brief facts necessary for deciding the questions raised in this appeal are that appellant No.1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is the owner of an immovable property, i.e. a piece of land, bearing City Survey No.18/738, admeasuring about 5387.35 sq.yds.
The companynsel for respondent Municipal Corporation has submitted certain documents before us at the time of hearing.
The trustees, by their lawyers letter dated 3.8.1977, companyveyed that the date of six months stipulated by Section 127 had to be companyputed from the date of the receipt from them of the information required and that Corporation companyld number make an inquiry at that stage without taking a decision on the material question.
On 7.7.1958, Bombay Municipal Corporation had issued a declaration under Section 4 1 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954 , expressing its intention to prepare a development plan for the area under its jurisdiction and published a development plan in accordance with the provisions of the said Act on 9.1.1964.
Ref i TPB 4302/572/UD 11 dtd.27.3.02 ii CHE ACQ C/962 dtd.
On 3.2.1998 the appellants served numberice through their advocates under Section 127 of the MRTP Act asking for re notifying the property or to release the said property from reservation and accord sanction approval to develop the property by the owner.
Having aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was registered as Writ Petition No.353 of 2005 M s. S.P. Building Corporation Anr.
Again the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai informed the appellants that the numberice was invalid as the period of ten years had number lapsed from the date of the revised plan.
In pursuance of the purchase numberice served on the Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, a meeting of the Improvement Committee was called.
along with the required information in the usual proforma in triplicate three companyies of plans have already been submitted vide this office letter issued u number CHE ACQ C/962 dtd.
956 of 16.9.2002 companyy enclosed have accorded sanction to initiate the acquisition proceedings for the above mentioned land reserved for Childrens Park adm.
A petition was filed before the High Court to quash the aforementioned numberification, which was allowed by the Single Judge and subsequently maintained by the Division Bench.
Yours faithfully, Sd CHIEF ENGINEER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Later on the State Government on 20.11.2002 issued a numberification exercising the power companyferred by sub section 4 read with sub section 2 of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the LA Act.
No such application or letter moved by the Municipal Commissioner has been produced before us.
On 11.1.1967, the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act repealed the Act of 1954 saving the proceedings already initiated under the Act of 1954.
situated at Carmichael Road, Malabar Hill Division, Mumbai 400026.
as per provision of 126 1 of the R.T.P. Act 1966 as amended upto date to issue order for the acquisition of property under reference as provided under the provisions of sec.
Since numberaward was made as per Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 which came into force on 24.9.1984, the acquisition proceedings were declared by the Land Acquisition Officer to have lapsed.
vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
For the first time on 16.9.2002, a resolution was passed by the Municipal Corporation whereby sanction was given to initiate the acquisition proceedings of land and the Municipal Commissioner was authorised to make an application to the State Government and on 17.9.2002 a letter was sent by the Chief Engineer Development Plan to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra for initiating acquisition proceedings.
Admittedly, in the present case, the land was neither acquired number were the steps taken within 10 years from the date on which the final regional plan or final development plan came into force.
On being asked by this Court, as many as six documents have been produced before us by the companynsel for the Municipal Corporation who has stated before us that these documents were also placed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondents.
and also authorized the Municipal Commissioner to make application to State Govt.
126 2 3 and 4 of the M.R.T.P. Act 1966 as amended upto date read with section 6 of L.A. Act 1894.
On 13.9.2002 without there being any resolution by the Municipal Corporation, the Chief Engineer Development Plan sent an application to the State Government for initiating the acquisition proceedings.
This Court by an order dated 11.7.2005, issued numberice and tagged the case along with C.A. No.
11446 of 2005 challenging the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
This is for information and further necessary action.
