1. Land reserved for public purpose under Development Plan — Failure to acquire within statutory period — Purchase notice under Section 127, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
LAXMIKANT & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1965 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16033 OF 2021)
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Land owner cannot be deprived of use of land for years together – Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use land in a particular manner, said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period.
Acquisition of land – Land owner cannot be deprived of use of land for years together – Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use land in a particular manner, said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Reservation of Land
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.142, Art.141, Art.144
MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT: S.126, S.31(6), S.127
MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT: S.126, S.31(6), S.127
Headnote
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 126 – Acquisition of land – Land owner cannot be deprived of use of land for years together – Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use land in a particular manner, said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period – Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire land under Section 126 of the Act – Additional one year is granted to land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015 – Such time line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by State or by Authorities under the State – State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire land as acquisition is on its satisfaction that land is required for a public purpose – If State was inactive for long number of years, Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of State to invoke its rights of eminent domain – Direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening the time line fixed under Statute – Direction to acquire land within one year set aside. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 6.8.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, holding that the reservation of land in the Development Plan stands lapsed as no declaration under Section 126 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was published. However, the Planning Authority was given one year time to acquire land once reserved.
Findings of Court:
Once the Act does not contemplate any further period for acquisition, the Court cannot grant additional period for acquisition of land. The land was reserved for a public purpose way back in 2002. By such reservation, the land owner could not use the land for any other purpose for ten years.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court can grant additional time to the Planning Authority to acquire reserved land after the statutory reservation period has lapsed. (Para 1 , 4 )
3. Statutory timelines for land acquisition are sacrosanct; directions given under Article 142 in specific cases do not constitute binding precedents for subordinate courts. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Courts cannot grant additional time for land acquisition beyond the period contemplated by statute, as acquisition is an exercise of the State's power of eminent domain. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — Direction granting additional one year to the Planning Authority to acquire the land set aside. (Para 9 )
6. Can a court grant additional time to a Planning Authority to acquire land after the statutory reservation period has lapsed?
No. The court held that once the statute provides a specific timeline for acquisition, the court cannot grant an additional period, as such timelines are sacrosanct and must be adhered to by the State or its authorities. (Para 7 )
7. Does a direction issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 in a specific case create a binding precedent for all subsequent land acquisition matters?
No. Directions given under Article 142 based on the specific facts of a case are not considered law declared by the Court and are not binding precedents under Article 141 or 144 of the Constitution. (Para 7 )
8. Can the State be legally compelled by a court to acquire land for a public purpose?
No. Acquisition is based on the State's satisfaction that land is required for a public purpose; courts cannot direct acquisition as it involves the exercise of the State's power of eminent domain. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 6.8.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, holding that the reservation of land in the Development Plan stands lapsed as no declaration under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [For short, the ‘Act’] was published. However, the Planning Authority was given one year time to acquire the land once reserved relying upon the judgment of this Court reported as Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors., (2019) 14 SCC 411.
2. A final Development Plan was published under Section 31(6) of the Act on 2.1.2002 which came into force on 18.2.2002 in respect of land including the land owned by the appellants such as Latur Reservation Site bearing No. 217 for playground. The appellants purchased the land bearing Plot Nos. 1, 2, 9 & 10 admeasuring 1394.05 square meters out of Survey No. 73, admeasuring 6500 square meters on 21.11.2002. Though the Development Plan was finalized, but the same was never implemented nor any action was taken for acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After expiry of ten years, the appellants issued notice on 16.8.2016 under Section 127 of the Act so as to purchase the reserved land within one year of the date of the notice. Such notice was acknowledged by the respondent Municipal Corporation on 20/22.8.2016 to submit measuring plan showing reservation thereon including the area owned by the appellants.
3. It was thereafter that the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the land of the appellants bearing Survey No. 73 as released from the Development Plan of Latur Municipal Corporation and that reservation of Site No. 217 for playground be declared to have lapsed to the extent of the land owned by the appellants and that the land is available for the residential use of the appellants. In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation, it was inter alia submitted that the proposal was submitted to respondent No. 2 i.e., the Collector, Latur to take effective steps for acquiring the land bearing Survey No. 73 as the land was reserved for playground. The proposal was returned by the Competent Authority but no effective decision has been taken over the said proposal.
4. Thus, it was beyond dispute that the land once included in the Development Plan under Section 31(6) of the Act was not acquired within the period of ten years and within additional period of one year after purchase notice was submitted by the appellants on 16.8.2016 and, in fact, not till the writ petition was decided by the High Court. The Municipal Corporation is not aggrieved against the declaration granted by the High Court of the fact that the reservation of the land stands lapsed. It is only the land owner who has come in appeal before this Court against the restriction of one year put by the High Court giving additional time to respondents to acquire the land.
5. This Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was examining the reservation of land for a garden in a Development Plan in the year 1966 but the same was not acquired even after purchase notice was served by the land owner. However, relying upon the judgment of this Court reported as Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 54 and some other judgments, it was held that the land reserved for public park cannot be permitted to be converted for other public purposes.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the liberty given by the High Court to acquire the land within an additional period of one year is not contemplated by the statute. This Court in Bangalore Medical Trust, a Public Interest Litigation, interfered with the decision of the Bangalore Development Authority to convert the land reserved for public parks for the purposes of constructi
