{"id":53180,"date":"2008-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-12-20T09:48:20","modified_gmt":"2017-12-20T04:18:20","slug":"shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, B.R. Gavai<\/div>\n
                               1\n\n\n\n\n              WRIT PETITION NO.1529 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n    Date of decision: 19th September, 2008.\n\n    For approval and signature.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE F.I. REBELLO.\n\n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    1.   Whether Reporters of Local Papers              }\n         may be allowed to see the judgment?            }\n\n    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?         }\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    3.    Whether Their Lordships wish to see\n         the fair copy of the judgment?                 }\n\n    4.\n                    \n         Whether this case involves a substantial\n         question of law as to the interpretation\n                                                        }\n                                                        }\n         of the Constitution of India, 1950 or          }\n                   \n         any Order made thereunder?                     }\n\n    5.    Whether it is to be circulated to the         }\n         Civil Judges?                                  }\n\n    6.    Whether the case involves an important        }\n      \n\n\n         question of law and whether a copy of          }\n         the judgment should be sent to Mumbai,         }\n   \n\n\n\n         Nagpur and Panaji offices?                     }\n\n\n\n\n\n        [ S.U.Tupe ]\n    Personal Assistant to\n    the Honourable Judge.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:52:51 :::\n                               1\n\n\n\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n              WRIT PETITION NO.1529 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    1. Shrikant s\/o Uttamrao Bhutekar,\n       Age: 27 years, Occ: Agri.,\n       R\/o. Ramnagar, Laxmi Colony,\n       Osmanabad, Tq & Dist. Osmanabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    2. Shahaji s\/o Namdevrao Kakade,\n       Age: 65 years, Occ: Agri.,\n       R\/o. Namnagar, Laxmi Colony,\n       Osmanabad, Tq & Dist. Osmanabad.\n\n    3. Raghuveer s\/o Shivaji Chitrao,\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n       Age: 26 years, Occ: Agri.,\n       R\/o. Ramnagar, Laxmi Colony,\n                   \n       Osmanabad, Tq & Dist. Osmanabad.\n                                .... PETITIONERS\n\n                  VERSUS\n                  \n    1. The State of Maharashtra,\n       through its Secretary,\n       Department of Town Planning,\n       Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n      \n\n\n    2. The District Collector,\n       Collector Office, Osmanabad,\n   \n\n\n\n       Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.\n\n    3. The Chief Officer,\n       Municipal Council,\n       Osmanabad.\n\n\n\n\n\n    4. The Town Planning Officer,\n       Town Planning Office,\n       Osmanabad.\n\n    5. The Deputy Director,\n       Town Planning, Aurangabad,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Near Baba Petrol Pump,\n       Aurangabad.\n\n    6. The Director,\n       Town Planning, Central Office,\n       State of Maharashtra, Pune.\n                                .... RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::\n                                             2\n\n\n\n\n                           ...\n    Shri.A.B. Kale, Advocate holding for\n    Shri.P.V.Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n    Shri.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent-State.\n    Shri.R.V.Naiknaware, Advocate for respondent No.3.\n                           ...\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n                                    CORAM:       F.I. REBELLO, AND\n                                                 B.R. GAVAI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                          RESERVED ON :         14TH AUGUST, 2008<\/p>\n
                          PRONOUNCED ON: 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2008<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT: ( PER : F.I. REBELLO, J.)<\/p>\n
    .         The petitioners have filed present petition<\/p>\n
    contending<\/p>\n
    admeasuring
\n                       that<\/p>\n
                          1<\/span><\/p>\n
                               H.<\/p>\n
\n                                 they are the owners of the\n\n                                    82 R.    and 81 R.      from\n                                                                          land\n\n                                                                       Survey\n                              \n    No.      117 situated at Osmanabad city.                  In terms of\n\n<\/pre>\n
    development plan for Osmanabad city, this land has<\/p>\n
    been     reserved for play ground.              Respondent No.             3<\/p>\n
    is     the     Municipal        Council for whom the           land       is<\/p>\n
    reserved        for development of play ground.                  By     the<\/p>\n
    present petition, the petitioners are praying that<\/p>\n
    the     land admeasuring 1 H.               82 R.   and 81 R.         from<\/p>\n
    Survey       No.          117 situated at Osmanabad          city,        be<\/p>\n
    deleted        from       the revised development          scheme         of<\/p>\n
    Osmanabad          city, as notified in notification dated<\/p>\n
    20-04-1985         and      that reservation insofar             as     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners’ land is concerned be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
    .         It       is the case of the petitioners that                    on<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
    several        occasions they have brought to the notice<\/p>\n
    of the respondents that the land which is reserved<\/p>\n
    be     used for the purpose for which it reserved and<\/p>\n
    if     the     respondents       are       not in      a      position          to<\/p>\n
    acquire        the land then to de-reserve the same                           and<\/p>\n
    to     permit     the petitioners to develop                     the        land.\n<\/p>\n
    They     moved        an application and            raised         objection<\/p>\n
    before         respondent       Nos.       3        and     4    by         their<\/p>\n
    application           dated 04-07-2006.         It was pointed out<\/p>\n
    in the said application that the land has not been<\/p>\n
    acquired        nor     has compensation been paid                     to     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners<\/p>\n
                          and lay out permission sought by                        the<\/p>\n
    petitioners, has also not been sanctioned.\n<\/p>\n
    2.        The     petitioners again on 20-11-2006                         moved<\/p>\n
    an     application        to    respondent           No.         3     stating<\/p>\n
    therein        that     the concerned authorities                    are      not<\/p>\n
    taking       steps      and    therefore, the             said       land       be<\/p>\n
    de-reserved           which is reserved for the purpose                         of<\/p>\n
    play     ground.        The said application,it was                      stated<\/p>\n
    be     treated        as a notice under Section 127 of                        the<\/p>\n
    M.R.T.P.         Act.         Till   date      of     filing         of       the<\/p>\n
    petition        i.e.26-02-2008 respondent –                     authorities<\/p>\n
    have     not initiated an proceedings for acquisition<\/p>\n
    or     taken     steps.        The petitioners            are      therefore<\/p>\n
    entitled,        to get the land back, as no steps                           have<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    been     taken within six months in terms of                     Section<\/p>\n
    127     of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning<\/p>\n
    Act,         1966,     as     the    reservation      automatically<\/p>\n
    lapsed.        The petitioners rely on the communication<\/p>\n
    dated 20-11-2006.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        Osmanabad Municipal Council has published a<\/p>\n
    notice       in the newspaper on 19-06-2002                intimating<\/p>\n
    commencement           of      the        process     for         revised<\/p>\n
    development          plan.     The earlier plan was            notified<\/p>\n
    in     the     year 1985.       The petitioners         herein        have<\/p>\n
    raised objection to the revised development plan.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        On      21-02-2007        respondent No.        3 issued         a<\/p>\n
    notice       to      the    petitioners in respect           of     their<\/p>\n
    application          dated     12-02-2007.     Petitioners            were<\/p>\n
    informed          that their application dated             12-02-2007<\/p>\n
    cannot       be considered as purchase notice in                    terms<\/p>\n
    of     Section       127 of the Maharashtra           Regional          and<\/p>\n
    Town     Planning Act, 1966 ( hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
    as “M.R.T.P.          Act”).     It was also pointed out that<\/p>\n
    the petitioners had raised objection in respect of<\/p>\n
    revised        development      plan and an         opportunity           of<\/p>\n
    hearing would be accorded to the petitioners.                           The<\/p>\n
    petitioners          received       notice   on     07-11-2007            to<\/p>\n
    remain       present in respect of objection raised                       to<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
    the     revised        development plan.                Accordingly,                the<\/p>\n
    petitioners           have appeared and have made                          detailed<\/p>\n
    representation              for de-reservation.                   Reference           is<\/p>\n
    made     to     W.P.        No.       4977\/2003 in respect                   of     the<\/p>\n
    revised        development            scheme     of      Osmanabad                city,<\/p>\n
    where     specific           directions          were       issued           against<\/p>\n
    respondent        No.3.          Petitioners have been unable to<\/p>\n
    show     relation of order passed in that W.P.                                     with<\/p>\n
    the issue in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        Reply            has       been     filed         on         behalf         of<\/p>\n
    respondent No.<\/p>\n
                                3.       According to respondent No.                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioners           are        not the original owners                     of     the<\/p>\n
    land     nor     the        petitioners had             served            purchased<\/p>\n
    notice     in terms of Section 49 of the                              M.R.T.P.Act<\/p>\n
    on      the     Municipal             Council         and        the       Planning<\/p>\n
    Authority        in        its       proper perspectives.                    Such      a<\/p>\n
    notice     is     mandatory.                As only after that is                   the<\/p>\n
    planning        authority            entitled     to take              steps        for<\/p>\n
    acquisition           of     the       reserved       land          and      if     the<\/p>\n
    authority fails to take the appropriate steps then<\/p>\n
    only     the     land        is entitled          to        be      de-reserved.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondent        No.            3    has started           the        process        to<\/p>\n
    initiate        the        second revised development plan                            in<\/p>\n
    the     year     2002 and a notice was published in                                 the<\/p>\n
    local     newspaper              on 19-06-2002.          In         the      present<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
    revised     plan,        reservation         No.     6     on     the      land<\/p>\n
    Survey     No.         117 is kept for the purpose of                      play<\/p>\n
    ground     considering the future necessity of public<\/p>\n
    at     large in the developing city.                    The petitioners<\/p>\n
    had     objected        to the proposed reservation on                       the<\/p>\n
    land     Survey No.           117 on 04-07-2006.               Before      this<\/p>\n
    objection,        the     petitioners         had        not     given       any<\/p>\n
    representation           to    the     Municipal          Council.           The<\/p>\n
    objection        filed        by the petitioners was heard                     by<\/p>\n
    the     planning        team     formulated         for        hearing       the<\/p>\n
    public     objections.            Subsequent            procedure            for<\/p>\n
    notifying        the<\/p>\n
                             plan will be followed.                  On     notice<\/p>\n
    being     received of revised development plan, it is<\/p>\n
    submitted        that     by     operation         of     law     more         so<\/p>\n
    Sections 23 and Section 38, the land use for which<\/p>\n
    development plan is being proposal is frozen.                                The<\/p>\n
    petitioner         is     though       not     entitled           to       seek<\/p>\n
    de-reservation           of    land or change the use of                     the<\/p>\n
    land.\n<\/p>\n
    .         In reply to Para.            6 of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
    the     notice     was        served    on    20-11-2006,             it       is<\/p>\n
    specifically set out that this notice has not been<\/p>\n
    served     on     the Municipal Council and                     inspite        of<\/p>\n
    that     the Council is taking steps for                       acquisition<\/p>\n
    of     the land Survey No.             117 reservation No.                 6 as<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
    per law and under the provisions of M.R.T.P.                               Act.\n<\/p>\n
    This specific averment about non receipt of notice<\/p>\n
    has     not been denied.               For the aforesaid             reasons,<\/p>\n
    it     is     submitted          that        the   petition      should        be<\/p>\n
    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          Reply        has    also      been filed on         behalf         of<\/p>\n
    respondent           Nos.      1,4,5 and 6.          It is set out that<\/p>\n
    the Government has sanctioned development plan for<\/p>\n
    Osmanabad           (R) on 20-04-1985 which came into force<\/p>\n
    on     01-06-1985.             The development plan of Osmanabad<\/p>\n
    (Second        Revision)
\n                                ig     was published        in     Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Government               Gazette        on         23-06-2006         inviting<\/p>\n
    suggestions,             objections          from the    public         within<\/p>\n
    period        of     60     days.       The petitioner          has     raised<\/p>\n
    objection           on     04-07-2006.           The petitioners’          land<\/p>\n
    was     reserved by following the due procedure under<\/p>\n
    the M.R.T.P.             Act and consequently suitable orders<\/p>\n
    be passed.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          From      the facts on record, what emerges                        is<\/p>\n
    that        there is a development plan notified in                          the<\/p>\n
    year        1985.        That development plan is sought to be<\/p>\n
    revised        in terms of the M.R.T.P.                 Act and         notice<\/p>\n
    to     that effect was published in 2002.                       The      State<\/p>\n
    Government           thereafter         has published          the      second<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
    revised        proposed       development plan           of     Osmanabad<\/p>\n
    under     Section 26 and invited objections.                        In     the<\/p>\n
    second     revised          plan also the land           reserved          for<\/p>\n
    play     ground        which    the       same    reserved          as     per<\/p>\n
    development plan in force.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        From        the   averments      in the        petition          and<\/p>\n
    reply     filed,        the    questions         that      arises          for<\/p>\n
    consideration are :\n<\/p>\n
              (i)   In<\/p>\n
                         the instant    case,
\n              petitioners established that
\n                                                has   the
\n                                               they have
\n              served notice as required under Section 127
\n              of the M.R.T.P. Act and if so, served,<\/p>\n
              does the land stand de-reserved?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (ii) Whether after a revision is proposed
\n              to the development plan in force under the
\n              M.R.T.P.  Act, what is     the effect of<\/p>\n
              serving notice under Section 127 of the
\n              Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9.        To     answer       the   first      issue       we     have       to<\/p>\n
    consider        the     provisions        of Section 127            of     the<\/p>\n
    M.R.T.P.         Act.       The Section firstly requires that<\/p>\n
    a     notice     be     served on the          Planning         Authority,<\/p>\n
    Development           Authority     or    as     the     case       may      be<\/p>\n
    appropriate           authority.      Secondly, the notice                 may<\/p>\n
    be served by the owner or any person interested in<\/p>\n
    the     land.         On such service of the notice on                     the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    authority,           the     reservation, allotment                        shall        be<\/p>\n
    deemed        to have lapsed if no steps for acquisition<\/p>\n
    are     taken        within          the     time      prescribed.                Under<\/p>\n
    Section        136,        it is required that the                       notice         be<\/p>\n
    served        on     any person who shall be deemed                              to     be<\/p>\n
    duly     served, if it is sent by registered post                                       or<\/p>\n
    delivered          at      such office.            This          provision            only<\/p>\n
    mandates           as to when it can be said that a                              notice<\/p>\n
    is     duly        served.       Planning Authority” is                        defined<\/p>\n
    under         Section        2(19)          of        the        M.R.T.P.             Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Similarly,           “local          authority”         is        defined         under<\/p>\n
    Section<\/p>\n
                   2(15) of the Act.                 Under Section 152                    the<\/p>\n
    powers        of     the      Planning             Authority            are      to     be<\/p>\n
    exercised          by      the       officers as set                out       therein.\n<\/p>\n
    This     does not include Section 127.                              Under Section<\/p>\n
    146     every        member          and every         officer            and     other<\/p>\n
    employee of a Regional Board or Planning Authority<\/p>\n
    or     Development Authority shall be deemed to be                                       a<\/p>\n
    public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of<\/p>\n
    the Indian Penal Code.                     The notice therefore under<\/p>\n
    Section        127      is       a    notice to be                served        on     the<\/p>\n
    Planning            Authority          or     as        the        case       may      be,<\/p>\n
    appropriate authority.                     The notice would therefore<\/p>\n
    be valid if the notice is served on the authority.\n<\/p>\n
    In     the     first         instance,           it         is     sought        to     be<\/p>\n
    contended            that         the       notice           was        served          on<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
    20-11-2006.           The notice of 20-11-2006 is addressed<\/p>\n
    to     the     President\/C.E.O.              of       the    Nagarparishad.\n<\/p>\n
    Secondly,        respondent            No.        3    has      specifically<\/p>\n
    averred that the said notice has not been received<\/p>\n
    by     them.         This has not been controverted by                            the<\/p>\n
    petitioners by filing any rejoinder.                            In Para.           13<\/p>\n
    of     the     reply        filed by respondent               No.3,          it    is<\/p>\n
    clearly        set out that a notice has not been served<\/p>\n
    on     20-11-2006 on the Municipal Council.                            The time<\/p>\n
    to     take     steps would commence on a proper                             notice<\/p>\n
    being        served.         Our attention is invited                    to       the<\/p>\n
    Judgment        of<\/p>\n
                              the Division Bench of this court                         in<\/p>\n
    M\/s.      C.V.            Shah    &    A.V.   Bhat          vs.       State        of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra,<\/a> 2005(3) ALL MR 197,
\n                                197 to point out that<\/p>\n
    a     notice     served on Principal Officer is                          a     good<\/p>\n
    service.         Our attention was specifically                          invited<\/p>\n
    to     Para.         21    of the said judgment.                   The        court<\/p>\n
    there     held       that        the   notice         addressed          to       the<\/p>\n
    Commissioner,             Pune    Municipal           Corporation            is    a<\/p>\n
    notice duly served.               On this ground alone, as time<\/p>\n
    has not commenced to run, the question of the land<\/p>\n
    standing de-reserved by operation of law has to be<\/p>\n
    rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    10.       Assuming           that      the        notice        was      validly<\/p>\n
    served,        the    question is whether the land                           stands<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
    de-reserved.          On   behalf    of   the      petitioners,<\/p>\n
    learned     counsel     has   placed      reliance        on       the<\/p>\n
    judgment     of     the Supreme Court in Girnar             Traders<\/p>\n
    vs.     State     of Maharashtra and others<\/a>, with                S.P.\n<\/p>\n
    Building     Corporation      and another vs.           State        of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra       and   others, (2007) 7        Supreme          Court<\/p>\n
    Cases,     555 = 2007 AIR SCW 5782.        In the         majority<\/p>\n
    judgment,     the    issue as to when steps           are        taken<\/p>\n
    under Section 127 have been considered.                 The court<\/p>\n
    observed     that    the steps to commencement              of     the<\/p>\n
    acquisition       in such a situation would necessarily<\/p>\n
    be<\/p>\n
          the steps for acquisition and not a step which<\/p>\n
    may not result into acquisition and merely for the<\/p>\n
    purpose     of seeking time so that Section 127                  does<\/p>\n
    not come into operation.        Dealing with Section 127<\/p>\n
    the majority opinion, observed as under.\n<\/p>\n
              “The underlying principle     envisaged in
\n              Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act is either
\n              to utilise the land for the purpose it is<\/p>\n
              reserved in the plan in a given time or let
\n              the owner utilise the land for the purpose
\n              it is permissible under the Town Planning
\n              Scheme.   The step taken under the Section
\n              within time stipulated should be towards
\n              acquisition of land.     It is a step of
\n              acquisition of land and      not step for<\/p>\n
              acquisition of land.     It is trite that
\n              failure of authorities to take steps which
\n              result    in    actual    commencement   of
\n              acquisition of land cannot be permitted to
\n              defeat the purpose and object of the scheme
\n              of acquisition under the M.R.T.P. Act by
\n              merely moving an application requesting the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
              Government to acquire      the land, which
\n              Government may or may not accept. Any step
\n              which may or may not culminate in the step
\n              for acquisition cannot be be said to be a
\n              step towards acquisition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .         The        court,        in        its    majority         opinion,<\/p>\n
    observed as under.\n<\/p>\n
              “It is Section 6 declaration which would
\n              commence the acquisition proceedings under
\n              the MRTP Act and would culminate into
\n              passing   of an award    as provided    in<\/p>\n
              sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the
\n              M.R.T.P.    Act. Thus, unless and until<\/p>\n
              Section 6 declaration is issued, it cannot
\n              be said that the steps for acquisition are
\n              commenced.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .         It       is no doubt true that minority view                          is<\/p>\n
    to    the        contrary and has taken the view that                          the<\/p>\n
    issue       must     be     referred          to    larger      bench          for<\/p>\n
    consideration              also         of    the        issue,         as      to<\/p>\n
    applicability              of     Section         11A    of       the        Land<\/p>\n
    Acquisition          Act        has already been referred                 to     a<\/p>\n
    larger       bench     in        the         case   of    Girnar        Traders<\/p>\n
    (supra).\n<\/p>\n
    11.       On       behalf of respondents, learned                      counsel<\/p>\n
    seeks       to     point out to the provisions of                      Section<\/p>\n
    126(1) (c) and 126(2).                  It is submitted that under<\/p>\n
    Section          126(1)(c)        the authority has to               make       an<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
    application           to        the    State Government          and      under<\/p>\n
    Section 126(2) it is the State Government that has<\/p>\n
    to     take     steps           to issue      the   declaration           under<\/p>\n
    Section        126(2),          whereas       under Section         127      the<\/p>\n
    Planning        Authority,             Developing Authority, or                as<\/p>\n
    the case may be, Appropriate Authority that has to<\/p>\n
    take     steps        for commencing acquisition on                     notice<\/p>\n
    being     served.               In our opinion, it would               not     be<\/p>\n
    possible        for        us     to    consider     such      contention,<\/p>\n
    considering           majority          opinion     in    M\/s.          Girnar<\/p>\n
    Traders (Supra), to take any other view.\n<\/p>\n
    12.       The     preparation               of a development plan              is<\/p>\n
    governed        by Chapter-III of the M.R.T.P.                      Act.       On<\/p>\n
    the     plan being notified, it is the duty of                            every<\/p>\n
    planning         authority             to    take    such      steps         are<\/p>\n
    necessary        to carry out the provisions of the plan<\/p>\n
    in     terms     of Section 42.               In other      words,        after<\/p>\n
    development           plan is notified, the development                        in<\/p>\n
    the     area     has        to        be in terms    of     the     plan       as<\/p>\n
    notified.        The first revised development plan came<\/p>\n
    into force on 01-06-1985.                     There is a further duty<\/p>\n
    cast on the planning authority under Section 38 of<\/p>\n
    the     M.R.T.P.           Act, at least once in twenty                   years<\/p>\n
    from the date on which a Development Plan has come<\/p>\n
    into operation to revise the development plan.                                 In<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
    the     instant           case,          steps        have    been    taken        for<\/p>\n
    revision           of development plan.                  While revising the<\/p>\n
    plan, various provisions had to be followed.                                     Once<\/p>\n
    the     plan           is revised, that is a                  new    development<\/p>\n
    plan.        (See Judgment in Mr.                     Prafulla C.         Dave and<\/p>\n
    others        vs.         The            Municipal       Commissioner,           Pune<\/p>\n
    Municipal Corpration and others<\/a>, All M.R.                                   2008(2)<\/p>\n
    400).<\/p>\n
\n    400)\n\n\n\n    .         Under          Section           43    of the       M.R.T.P.           Act,\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    after        the        date        on     which       the     declaration           of\n\n    intention           to\n                                  \n                                  prepare a Development plan for                       any\n\n<\/pre>\n
    area is published in the Official Gazette or after<\/p>\n
    the     date           on which a notification specifying                          any<\/p>\n
    area as notified area is published in the Official<\/p>\n
    Gazette,           no person shall institute or change                             the<\/p>\n
    use     of     any land or carry out any development                                 of<\/p>\n
    land     without              the    permission in writing                  of     the<\/p>\n
    Planning Authority except for the purposes set out<\/p>\n
    therein.            A     perusal,          therefore, of            Section         43<\/p>\n
    would         indicate              that        the      land        cannot          be<\/p>\n
    developed,once                the        declaration of          intention           to<\/p>\n
    prepare            a     development            plan     of    any      area         is<\/p>\n
    published.               It     would,          thus, be clear          from       the<\/p>\n
    reading        of        this        provision          that     even       if     the<\/p>\n
    reservation             in the development plan as                      notified,<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
    stands      de-reserved,            yet considering Section               43,<\/p>\n
    the     development can be carried out only with                          the<\/p>\n
    permission            of     the      Planning    Authority.              The<\/p>\n
    Planning        Authority while granting permission                       for<\/p>\n
    development under Section 46 shall have due regard<\/p>\n
    to    the       provisions of any draft or final plan                       or<\/p>\n
    proposal published by means of notice submitted or<\/p>\n
    sanctioned under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    .          In     the instant case, as pointed out,                     even<\/p>\n
    if    it     is assumed that the reservation under                        the<\/p>\n
    old<\/p>\n
            development plan by virtue of a notice                        being<\/p>\n
    served      under          Section 127 and no steps are               taken<\/p>\n
    withinin        the        time    prescribed and       as     such       the<\/p>\n
    reservation           no     longer    subsists, on          account        of<\/p>\n
    subsequent         events         namely draft plan of           proposal<\/p>\n
    which       has been published, the Planning                   Authority<\/p>\n
    while       granting permission must have due regard of<\/p>\n
    provisions         of       the draft plan.       Of    course,         this<\/p>\n
    would        be    when       the      petitioners      applies           for<\/p>\n
    development           if     otherwise,      we    hold       that        the<\/p>\n
    reservation           on the land stands de-reserved.                     The<\/p>\n
    second issue is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    13.        In     our       opinion,    as the     petitioners            are<\/p>\n
    unable to show that valid notice as required under<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
    Section     127 has not commenced and if that be          so,<\/p>\n
    the    relief as sought by the petitioners cannot be<\/p>\n
    granted.      The petition, is therefore,    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    Rule     discharged.   There shall be no order as           to<\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
    [ B.R. GAVAI, J.]                [ F.I. REBELLO, J.]<\/p>\n
    sut\/u\/SEPT08\/wp1529.08<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:52:52 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008 Bench: F.I. Rebello, B.R. Gavai 1 WRIT PETITION NO.1529 OF 2008 Date of decision: 19th September, 2008. For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE F.I. REBELLO. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-20T04:18:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-20T04:18:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2730,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-20T04:18:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-20T04:18:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-20T04:18:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008"},"wordCount":2730,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008","name":"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-20T04:18:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikant-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shrikant vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}