HC orders PIL to look into amended law on reservation of PU land

Nagpur: A division bench of Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has directed filing of a public interest litigation (PIL) regarding reservation of lands for public purposes under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The HC bench feels that the amendments to the MRTP Act by the state, after HC orders in an earlier PIL, defeat the basic purpose the act.
On Thursday, a division bench comprising justice Bhushan Gavai and justice Vinay Deshpande issued notices to respondents, including Maharashtra’s Urban Development Department (UDD), asking them to file a reply before September 8. State town planning director in Pune, along with deputy directors in Nagpur and Amravati are other respondents in the case.
In the earlier suo motu PIL (No. 79/2014), the court had taken cognisance of inaction by local authorities, which allowed reservation of lands for public purposes to lapse. The then division bench of justice Gavai and justice Pradeep Deshmukh had sought an explanation from the government on two issues, including the action to be taken by government to ensure that reservation of lands for public purposes doesn’t lapse.
UDD joint secretary Avinash Patil had filed an affidavit that an amendment was made to Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966, where the period of 12 months was increased to 24 months for taking necessary steps to acquire the land. The bench had then disposed of the PIL after approving the steps taken by the government to ensure that reservation of land for public purposes doesn’t lapse.
Thereafter, Rupesh Raghuwanshi filed a petition before the HC contending that his land at Mangrulpir, Washim, was reserved for a shopping centre and parking as per MRTP Act, but since the government failed to purchase it from him within 12 months, he applied to develop it on his own, which was rejected.
The plea was listed before the bench of justice Bhushan Dharmadhikari and justice Indira Jain, which on June 20 allowed his prayer, stating that since the government had failed to acquire the land due to shortage of funds, it would be available to the petitioner to develop. They also said the amendment in Section 127 of MRTP Act defeats the basic purpose of the act, hence the issue needs to be considered afresh.
Citing the earlier bench’s orders, the second bench directed UDD and town planning director to file affidavits pointing out acquisitions made to honour reservations under the MRTP Act from 2006 till date. Similarly, they asked for the number of reservations which have lapsed because of court or government orders all over the state. The judges have directed filing of a PIL on the basis of this judgment, to find out whether authorities complied with the HC’s earlier directives, and asked the HC registry to place the PIL before the appropriate bench.