9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches. However, I may mention at this stage that observations made by my learned brother K. Ramaswamy, J., In connection with utilisation of land acquired under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.P. Act ) for one public purpose to be used for another public purpose, are with great respect not found by me to be apposite. I, therefore, record my reasons for the said view. Even though the proposal under Section 126(1) is for acquisition of land for a specified public purpose, if the planning authority wants to acquire the land subsequently for any other public purpose earmarked in the modified scheme as has happened in the present case that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Division Bench which according to me had not taken correct view on this score as held by my learned brother K. Ramaswamy, j., and with which view I respectfully concur, I deem it fit to record my additional reasons for non-suiting the respondent-petitioners on that score. It is trite to observe that before the planning proposals for Bandra-Kurla Complex were finalised and published by the State of Maharashtra on 3rd May 1979, the requisite statutory procedure of Section 40 sub-section 3(d), was necessarily followed by the Special section 3(d), was necessarily followed by the Special Planning Authority and that happened between 7th March 1977 and 3rd May 1979. To recapitulate as per Section 40 sub-section 3(d) of the M.R.T.P. Act be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention in 1979. By 1979, therefore, Respondents nos,1 and 2 must have known or with due diligence would have knows that there was a proposal to de-reserve their land from the earmarked purpose of extension of sewerage treatment plant of Municipal Corporation. They may not object to such a favorable proposal but obviously they should be inquisite enough to know as early as between 1977 and 1979 that the could on their land was getting lifted. Therefore, they would have been put to the enquiry as to what happened to this proposal and what was the final outcome thereof. Instead of bothering anyway about it, they just slumbered on and supported their claims for compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 9 of the Act, joined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporation, they staked their claims only for additional compensation. It is only thereafter that they filed writ petition on 14th July 1983. Such a belated writ petition, therefore, was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground of gross delay and laches. The respondent-writ petitioners can be said to have waived their objections to the acquisition on the ground of extinction of public purpose by their own inaction, lethargy and indolent conduct. The division bench of the High Court had taken the view that because of their inaction no vested rights of third parties are created. That finding is obviously incorrect for the simple reason that because of the indolent conduct of the writ petitioners land got acquired, award was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
