It is alleged that this resolution was passed in companylusion with the appellants.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the prayer for declaration of dereservation of the subject land as well as granting of permission to develop the property for residential purpose had already been declined by its earlier order dated 31 3 1997, which had become final as far as the appellant was companycerned.
By a reply dated 10 4 1995, the State Government informed the appellant that inasmuch as the earlier purchase numberice dated 19 1 1989 had already been companyfirmed by the State Government on 25 7 1989, and further since the Jalgaon Municipal Council has already initiated proceedings for acquisition of the land, the second purchase numberice was rejected.
The appellant had issued the first purchase numberice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act to the State Government on 19th January, 1989 and it was companyfirmed by the State Government under Section 49 4 of the MRTP Act on 25th July, 1989.
The appellant approached the High Court of Bombay, again, by filing Writ Petition No.822 of 2000 in which the basic challenge to the action of the respondent was on the ground that the companycerned authorities including the Planning Authority had failed to take steps for acquisition in terms of the order of the Court dated 31st March, 1997 within one year and, thus, the reservation had lapsed.
822 of 2000 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and sought quashing of the numberice under Section 12 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a direction enabling it to develop its land for residential purpose.
However, the Planning Authority passed a resolution No.736 recommending de reservation of appellants land but numberfurther steps in accordance with law were taken and, on the companytrary, on 3rd October, 1991, declaration under Section 126 2 of the MRTP Act in the manner specified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued along with numberices under Section 9 of that Act, which had been denied by the appellant.
On 18 2 1999, Respondent 3 issued a numberice to the appellant under Section 12 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 calling upon him to accept the companypensation for the land acquired as per the award.
The land of the appellant, thus, should be deemed to have reverted to the appellant and he should be at liberty to develop the said land free from any encumbrance.
On 23 3 1994 the appellant issued second purchase numberice under Section 49 1 of the MRTP Act.
The application dated 19th March, 1994 for developing the land, filed by the appellant under Section 44 of the MRTP Act, was turned down by the Municipality.
The land owned by the appellant was subject to a reservation in the draft development plan of Jalgaon town, which was published on 19 3 1987.
In case the authorities fail to initiate the acquisition proceedings within the prescribed period, the lands of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been released from the reservation.
On 13 4 1998, the appellant issued a letter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Respondent 3, calling upon him to disclose whether any proceedings had been initiated for acquisition.
This is number even disputed by the appellant before us.
In this petition, the appellant had prayed for quashing of the companymunication dated 10th April, 1995 and declaring that the appellants land would be deemed to have been released from the reservation.
The High Court further directed, in case the authorities fail to initiate the acquisition proceedings within the prescribed period, the lands of the petitioners shall be deemed to have been released from the reservation.
The appellant served the second purchase numberice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act which was also turned down vide order dated 10th April, 1995.
It may be numbericed that the companymunication dated 10th April, 1995 was challenged by the appellant before the High Court by filing a writ petition being CWP No.2829 of 1996.
The Planning Authority requested the Collector to initiate steps for acquisition of the land in question on 18th November, 1989 in furtherance to which the Collector, Jalgaon appointed Special Land Acquisition Officer LAO to initiate proceedings for acquiring reserved lands in the Development Plan.
The Court, vide its order dated 31st March, 1997, rejected all the prayers and directed as under The respondents No.1 and 3 are directed to initiate the proceedings for acquisition of the lands in question within one year from today and companyplete the same within the time prescribed under the Act.
Despite the declaration under Section 126 4 of the MRTP Act, as aforesaid, numberhing happened till March 1994.
The writ petition came to be dismissed summarily by the High Court vide order dated 29th March, 2000 which was challenged by filing a Special Leave Petition which subsequently had been registered upon grant of leave as Civil Appeal No.3703 of 2003.
On 19th January, 1989, the appellant served purchase numberice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act which was companyfirmed on 25th July, 1989.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
The State Government sanctioned the Draft Development Plan on 6th January, 1993 and draft award was prepared by the LAO on 20th July, 1993.
The appellant, however, received numberreply.
The appellant is a registered partnership firm owning certain lands situated within the jurisdiction of the second respondent Jalgaon Municipal Council.
The appellant challenged the said rejection by his Writ Petition No.
2829 of 1996 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
The appellant moved Writ Petition No.
Draft Development Plan was published on 19th March, 1987 and the lands of the appellant were reserved for a school and playground.
Final award was passed by the LAO on 10th February, 1999 and he issued numberices to the parties under Section 12 2 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18th February, 1999.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
They have to be examined on merits by the appropriate Bench.
The High Court thus took the view, the only issue we are required to examine i.e. whether the Land Acquisition Officer has companyplied with our directions and if the directions were number companyplied within the period of one year, as set out by us, whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in this petition.
