(Maloo & Talda Developers & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- A P BHANGALE
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard Shri Mundhada, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mujumdar, learned AGP for respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 and Shri Shingne, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The learned AGP is seeking time to obtain instructions, however, as Respondents No. 2 has filed reply affidavit, we have rejected the request. The fact shows that a valid purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as MRTP Act) has been received by the Municipal Corporation on
26.05.2011. The Municipal Corporation on 09.12.2011 has inquired from the petitioner whether it is ready and willing to accept TDR for compensation of the land to be acquired. Therefore, within one year, as contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the Municipal Corporation has not taken any steps leading to 278wp2919.12 2 acquisition of the land. In this situation, the reservation of site No. 90 for compost depot of Survey No. 205 has lapsed. The petitioner is free to use that land in accordance with the provisions of Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act. Writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS. JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.