The state government paid the price for procrastinating over ten years to acquire a parcel of land outside Vikhroli railway station that it had reserved when the Supreme Court (SC) recently quashed its notification as the reservation had lapsed as per provisions of the MRTP Act. It also set aside a government notification of 2008, proposing a modification in the reservation of the land initially meant for railways tracks to road.
The state government paid the price for procrastinating over ten years to acquire a parcel of land outside Vikhroli railway station that it had reserved when the Supreme Court (SC) recently quashed its notification as the reservation had lapsed as per provisions of the MRTP Act. It also set aside a government notification of 2008, proposing a modification in the reservation of the land initially meant for railways tracks to road.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., the company which owns the land in question along the eastern expressway, argued that in 1991, the plot was reserved under the development plan for acquisition of the Union of India, ministry of railways, for laying down additional tracks between Thane and Kurla.
In 2002, the company issued a purchase notice to the railways, asking it to acquire the land measuring measuring 2,188 sq. metres if needed. For over six months, there was no response from the ministry and thus, the reservation of the land was deemed to be released.
However, in 2004, the railway ministry wrote to the state urban development department that it did not need the land and that the department should issue a clarification to delete the same from the plan. But in 2006, the state modified the notification from 'railway reservation' to 'road'.
This modification was challenged in HC, but the petition was dismissed on the ground that it was a proposed modification. The government opposed the plea by saying that, "It is empowered to modify the development plan by deleting the earlier purpose for which the land was reserved, and can be modified for development plan road."
The company then challenged the notification and the HC order allowing the government to carry out the change. In the last week of January, a bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and R Bhanumati, quashed the notification stating that, "The impugned notification dated August 5, 2008 is quashed as the period of 10 years from the date of reservation in the development plan and 6 months notice served by the appellant (company) on the respondent (state) is also over. Hence, the reservation of the land has lapsed."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}