The validity of a purchase notice and the lapse of land reservation under the MRTP Act due to non-initiation of acquisition proceedings within the specified time period.

ORDER :

1. The High Court of Bombay by the order under challenge had dismissed the writ Petition No.751 of 2007 filed by the appellant by which a declaration was sought that the reservation of the appellant's land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the MRTP Act') had lapsed as acquisition proceedings had not been initiated within six months of the date of service of the purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the purchase notice was served on the Chief Engineer (Development Plan), Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, who was not the appropriate authority contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The purchase notice in the present case is dated 29.09.2004 and the period of six months contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act expired on 29.03.2005. There is also no dispute that in the present case the declaration under Section 126 of the MRTP Act/Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 28.06.2005, i.e. after the expiry of six months of the date of the purchase notice.

2. By order dated 03.03.2016, the Court had required the Municipal Corporation to place before it the records in original to show that the “Commissioner of the Corporation had no point of time had knowledge of the purchase notice in the present case; that all purchase notices have been addressed only to the Commissioner of the Corporation and that the Chief Engineer, Development Plan of the Corporation had at no point of time, in any case, had any occasion to deal with such matters under the MRTP Act”.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order a photocopy of the relevant part of the record in original has been placed before us, which would go to show that the Deputy Chief Engineer (D.P.) had circulated a note dated 14.10.2004 stating that purchase notice dated 29.09.2004 has been received and effective steps have to be taken within six months thereof i.e. on or before 28.03.2005. The extract of the said record would also go to show that the purchase notice along with the aforesaid note of the Deputy Chief Engineer (D.P.) was placed before the Municipal Commissioner sometime after 16.10.2004 but before 18.10.2004. The two other queries raised by the Court as indicated above have not been answered by the Corporation.

4. In the above facts, we are not inclined to go into the argument made on behalf of the Corporation that the notice being addressed to the Chief Engineer (Development Plan), Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and not to the Commissioner is not a valid notice and, therefore, the operation of the time period specified under Section 127 of the MRTP Act had not commenced. The records in original placed before the Court indicate that the notice along with the note of the Deputy Chief Engineer had been placed before the Municipal Commissioner, who, therefore, had adequate notice of the purchase notice issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Even if it is to be held that the period of six months would run not from the date of the notice i.e. 29.09.2004 but from the date it was placed before the Commissioner i.e. a date between 16.10.2004 and 18.10.2004 what transpires is that the notice/declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act having been issued on 28.06.2005 is still beyond the period of six months as required under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

5. In this regard we may also put on record that the initial notification reserving the land is dated 06.11.1991 and a period of ten years had expired much prior to the issuance of the purchase notice dated 29.09.2004. No steps for acquisition of the land had been taken during the long period, i.e. over a decade, that had elapsed and also within the additional time of six months contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Bombay High Court and grant the reliefs sou