IMPORTANT POINT
If no notice is given by land owner u/s 127 on expiry of ten years of final plan, the reservation continues and if in the meantime revised plan is issued, the original plan u/s 21 merges into revised plan u/s 38, and the bar of ten years gets a new lease of life.

Headnote:Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 127 – Lapsing of reservation of land – Not automatic – Land owner or any interested person has to give notice to the authorities after ten years of final plan to acquire the land – Failure of authorities to acquire or initiate proceedings within six months of notice entitles the owner to de-reservation – If no notice is given by land owner, the reservation continues – If in the meantime revised plan is issued, the original plan u/s 21 merges into revised plan u/s 38 – Bar of ten years gets a new lease of life – Owners cannot issue notice before expiry of ten years from the date of revised plan – Procedure of revising final plan after twenty years gives enough opportunity to land owners. (Para 19)
       (2003) 2 SCC 111; 1988 Supp. SCC 55 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The question arising in this appeal is “whether, the plan first prepared and notified under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) is the final development plan and the plan prepared under Section 38 is only a revision of the final development plan proposed under Section 21 of the MRTP Act and as such, the notice contemplated under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act and the period prescribed is from the publication of the development plan first notified under Section 21 and not the revised development plan under Section 38?”
       In the present case the land belonging to the appellants measure about 83 Ares and is situated at village Aundh, District Pune, Maharashtra. The said land was included in a development plan of the city of Pune notified on 8th July, 1966 and shown to be kept under reservation for a public purpose i.e. garden. The land was not acquired prior to the sanction of a revised development plan dated 5th January, 1987 which continued the reservation of the land for the same purpose i.e. garden. The final revised development plan dated 5th January, 1987 was preceded by a draft revised plan which was published in the year 1982.
       No notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was issued by the owner and any person interested in the land and served on any authority under the Act at any point of time prior to the purchase of the land by the appellants from the original owners in the year 1989.
       After such purchase, the appellants filed Writ Petition for deletion and de-reservation of the land. Thereafter, the appellants served a notice calling upon the Pune Municipal Corporation to acquire the land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the notice.
       As no action was taken by the Municipal Corporation, the appellants submitted a layout plan to the Corporation which was rejected.
       Against the aforesaid rejection made by the Corporation, the appellants filed an appeal.
       In the meantime, the writ petition filed by the appellants was disposed of with a direction that the appeal filed by the appellants be expeditiously decided.
       The said appeal was rejected on the ground that notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was premature as it was issued before the completion of the period of ten years from the date of the revised development plan.
       Assailing the said order passed in the appeal, the writ petition was filed which was decided adversely to the appellants.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The question arising for determination in the present appeal has been succinctly formulated by the High Court in the following terms:

“Whether, the plan first prepared and notified under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) is the final development plan and the plan prepared under Section 38 is only a revision of the final development plan proposed under Section 21 of the MRTP Act and as such, the notice contemplated under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act and the period prescribed is from the publication of the development plan first notified under Section 21 and not the revised development plan under Section 38?”

2. To answer the aforesaid question, a brief conspectus of the statutory framework under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRTP Act’) will be necessary.

3. The preamble to the Act suggests that the MRTP Act was enacted, inter alia, “…….to make better provisions for the preparation of development plans with a view to ensuring that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their executions is made effective………..” .

4. Section 2 of the MRTP Act contains the definition clause. A Development Plan is defined by sub-section (9) of Section 2 to mean “a plan for the development or redevelopment of the area within the jurisdiction of a Planning Authority [and includes revision of a development plan and proposals of a special planning authority for development of land within its jurisdiction]”.

5. Chapter III, inter alia, deals with preparation, submission and sanction of development plan. Section 21 provides that not later than three years after commencement of the Act every planning authority shall carry out a survey, prepare an existing land-use map and prepare a draft development plan for the area within its jurisdiction. A publication in the official gazette or in such other manner as may be prescribed stating that the draft development plan has been prepared is also contemplated. The draft development plan is required to be submitted by the State Government for sanction.

6. Section 22 provides for the contents of the development plan and is in the following terms :-

“Contents of Development Plan:-A Development plan shall generally indicate the manner in which the use of land in the area of the Planning Authority shall be regulated, and also indicate the manner in which the development of land therein shall be carried out. In particular, it shall provide so far as may be necessary for all or any of the following matters, that is to say,-

(a) proposals for allocating the use of land for purposes, such as residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, recreational;

(b) proposals for designation of land for public purpose, such as schools, colleges and other educational institutions, medical and public health institutions, markets, social welfare and cultural institutions, theatres and places for public entertainment, or public assembly, museums, art galleries, religious buildings and government and other public buildings as may from time to time be approved by the State Government;

(c) proposals for designation of areas for open spaces, playgrounds, stadia, zoological gardens, green belts, nature reserves, sanctuaries and dairies;

(d) transports and communications, such as roads, high-ways, park ways, railways, water-ways, canals and airports, including their extension and development;

(e) water supply, drainage, sewerage, sewage disposal, other public utilities, amenities and services including electricity and gas;

(f) reservation of land for community facilities and services;

(g) proposals for designation of sites for service industries, industrial estates and any other development on an extensive scale;

(h) preservation, conservation and development of areas of natural scenery and landscape;

(i) preservation of features, structures or places of historical, natural, architectural and scien

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 854

SUPREME COURT OF INDIARANJAN GOGOI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. – APPELLANTSVERSUS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. – RESPONDENTSCIVIL APPEAL NO. 1999 OF 2008Decided On : 03-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINTIf no notice is given by land owner u/s 127 on expiry of ten years of final plan, the reservation continues and if in the meantime revised plan is issued, the original plan u/s 21 merges into revised plan u/s 38, and the bar of ten years gets a new lease of life.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1999 OF 2008
Decided On : 03-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
If no notice is given by land owner u/s 127 on expiry of ten years of final plan, the reservation continues and if in the meantime revised plan is issued, the original plan u/s 21 merges into revised plan u/s 38, and the bar of ten years gets a new lease of life.