Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Friday directed the state government to delete a 2,000 square metre area out of a larger plot on Dadasaheb Phalke Road in Dadar from the reservation plan of a playground in the Development Control Promotion Regulations 2034, as the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) failed to take steps for its acquisition in time.
A division bench of justice RD Dhanuka and justice Kamal Khata has ordered the government to issue a notification under Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 within six months, declaring that the reservation in respect of the property stands lapsed and the property would be available to the petitioner for the purpose of development as prescribed in law.
Purushottam Raheja, the owner of the plot, had moved the court, seeking a declaration that the reservation over the plot had lapsed since the civic body had failed to acquire it within six months of him serving a purchase notice to it in May 2003.
Under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the municipal corporations are empowered to reserve private properties for civic facilities. The Act also provides for lapse of the reservation, if the civic body fails to acquire the property within six months of the land owner issuing a purchase notice. Such purchase notice, however, can be issued only after completion of 10 years of sanctioning of the development plan in which the property is shown under reservation.
Raheja contended that as regards to his property, the period of 10 years completed in October 2002 and the purchase notice was issued by him to the BMC in May 2003. According to him, since the notification for acquisition of the area was issued only on July 22, 2004, the reservation and the acquisition process too had lapsed.
The BMC, on the other hand, took a stand that pursuant to the purchase notice issued by the land owner, the municipal commissioner had written to the Improvement Committee of the corporation and the committee had passed necessary resolution to acquire the property, which was subsequently shown reserved in the Development Control Promotion Regulations 2034 for the city. Accordingly, the chief engineer, development plan, had on November 1, 2003, itself made an application to the state government for acquiring the area.
The court, however, observed that these cannot be termed as steps contemplated under the law to initiate acquisition of a property.
“In our view, only the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act within the prescribed period (six months) after the purchase notice would amount to taking steps for the acquisition of the property and not any other steps taken prior thereto,” the bench said. It was only issued on July 22, 2004, around 14 months after issuance of purchase notice by the land owner.
“The declaration under Section 6 and the subsequent correspondence placed on record by the parties would also clearly indicate that no steps were taken by the planning authority (BMC) in response to the purchase notice issued by the petitioner till the expiry of six months of the receipt of the said purchase notice,” the bench added.