2022 Supreme(SC) 190

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
The Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Others – Appellants
Versus
Vasant Mahadev Patil (Dead) through LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 510 of 2022
WITH
The Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Others – Appellants
Versus
Vasant Mahadev Patil (Dead) through LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 511 of 2022
Decided On : 14-02-2022

Reservation of land under the MRTP Act lapses if the land is not acquired within ten years from the date of publication of the final Development Plan and no declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 is issued within one year from the date of receipt of the purchase notice served by the landowners under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

Headnote:

The High Court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land in question and to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) for the following reasons: 1. The reservation of the land in question had lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 126 r/w Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), as no steps were taken to acquire the land within ten years from the date of publication of the final Development Plan and no declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 was issued within one year from the date of receipt of the purchase notice served by the landowners under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. 2. The land in question was not suitable and/or usable for the public purposes for which it was reserved, as it was a flood-affected area through which a rivulet named “Jayanti Nala” passed, making it unsuitable for the public purposes for which it was reserved. 3. The Municipal Corporation was not in a financial position to pay the huge compensation amount payable under the Act of 2013, as the entire annual budget for land acquisition was only Rs. 21 crores, whereas the compensation amount payable in the present case was Rs. 77,65,12,000/-. 4. The landowners were not entitled to TDR in lieu of compensation, as the land in question was not suitable and/or usable for the purposes for which it was reserved, and as per Clause 11.2.3 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (UDCPR 2020), it is not permissible to grant TDR for existing nallah, river, natural stream, natural pond, tank, water bodies, etc., and reservations which are not developable under the provisions of UDCPR, 2020.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from the acquisition of land by the Municipal Corporation for public purposes under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). The landowners served a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) on the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land. The Municipal Corporation passed a resolution to acquire the land and sent a letter to the Collector to initiate acquisition proceedings. However, no further steps were taken to acquire the land within the prescribed time period. The landowners filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land and pay compensation under the Act of 2013. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land and issue a declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013. The Municipal Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land and pay compensation under the Act of 2013. The Court held that the reservation of the land had lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 126 r/w Section 127 of the MRTP Act, as no steps were taken to acquire the land within ten years from the date of publication of the final Development Plan and no declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 was issued within one year from the date of receipt of the purchase notice served by the landowners under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The Court further held that the land in question was not suitable and/or usable for the public purposes for which it was reserved, as it was a flood-affected area through which a rivulet named “Jayanti Nala” passed, making it unsuitable for the public purposes for which it was reserved. The Court also held that the Municipal Corporation was not in a financial position to pay the huge compensation amount payable under the Act of 2013, as the entire annual budget for land acquisition was only Rs. 21 crores, whereas the compensation amount payable in the present case was Rs. 77,65,12,000/-. Finally, the Court held that the landowners were not entitled to TDR in lieu of compensation, as the land in question was not suitable and/or usable for the purposes for which it was reserved, and as per Clause 11.2.3 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (UDCPR 2020), it is not permissible to grant TDR for existing nallah, river, natural stream, natural pond, tank, water bodies, etc., and reservations which are not developable under the provisions of UDCPR, 2020.

Issues: 1. Whether the reservation of the land in question had lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 126 r/w Section 127 of the MRTP Act? 2. Whether the land in question was suitable and/or usable for the public purposes for which it was reserved? 3. Whether the Municipal Corporation was in a financial position to pay the huge compensation amount payable under the Act of 2013? 4. Whether the landowners were entitled to TDR in lieu of compensation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The reservation of the land in question had lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 126 r/w Section 127 of the MRTP Act, as no steps were taken to acquire the land within ten years from the date of publication of the final Development Plan and no declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 was issued within one year from the date of receipt of the purchase notice served by the landowners under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. 2. The land in question was not suitable and/or usable for the public purposes for which it was reserved, as it was a flood-affected area through which a rivulet named “Jayanti Nala” passed, making it unsuitable for the public purposes for which it was reserved. 3. The Municipal Corporation was not in a financial position to pay the huge compensation amount payable under the Act of 2013, as the entire annual budget for land acquisition was only Rs. 21 crores, whereas the compensation amount payable in the present case was Rs. 77,65,12,000/-. 4. The landowners were not entitled to TDR in lieu of compensation, as the land in question was not suitable and/or usable for the purposes for which it was reserved, and as per Clause 11.2.3 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (UDCPR 2020), it is not permissible to grant TDR for existing nallah, river, natural stream, natural pond, tank, water bodies, etc., and reservations which are not developable under the provisions of UDCPR, 2020.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and dismissed the original writ petition filed by the landowners.