Sindhubai v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for petitioner. -- Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate for respondent no.4. -- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : JUNE 18, 2012 P.C.: Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally. 2] The only dispute is whether it can be said that respondent no.4 – the Chief Officer of Municipal Council (Planning Authority) has initiated steps for acquisition. 2 1944-10-wp.odt 3] Advocate Mr.Dhorde contends that by passing resolution to acquire the land and by sending a proposal within time, steps have already been taken. According to him, this issue is still pending before the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4] Advocate Mr.Kale, on the other hand, submits that the issue is concluded by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2007 itself in the case of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2007)7 Supreme Court Cases 555 and the same has been followed by Division Bench of this Court on 8th April, 2011 while disposing of Writ Petition No.2887 of 2008. 5] After hearing respective learned counsel, we find that the judgment of the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Girnar Tranders (supra) has been followed on 8th April, 2011 by Division Bench of this Court while allowing Writ Petition No.2887 of

#2008. It has been held by the Division Bench that the steps for acquisition required under Section 127 of M.R.T.P. Act envisage notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In that matter, the Division Bench found that as that was, admittedly, not done, the reservation had lapsed. 3 1944-10-wp.odt 6] Before us the position is not different. There is no Section 6 notification as yet. In this situation, it is apparent that the reservation has lapsed. Accordingly, we allow the petition and make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (D). No costs. [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] kbp/