2001 Supreme(Bom) 1054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.P. Singh, C.J. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Prakash Rewadmal Gupta .... Petitioner.
Versus
Lonavala Municipal Council others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2945 of 2001, decided on 9-11-2001.
Advocates appeared :
K.K. Singhvi, Sr.A. with Ms. Taru Mehta Tiwari, for petitioner.
R.S. Apte, for respondent No. 1.
Smt. J.S. Pawar, A.G.P., for respondent No. 2.
V.P. Sawant, for respondent No. 3.

Headnote:MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Sections 22 and 125 - Urban Planning - Reservation of lands for public purposes - Draft Revised Development Plan - Designation of lands for school, colleges and other educational institutions constituting public purpose - Section 22 not mandate that a reservation only for Government run institutions - Reservation for private educational institution constitute public purpose. - In the context of urban planning the Act provides a statutory classification of proposals for the designation of lands for schools, colleges and other educational institutions as constituting public purposes. Clauses (b) of Section 22 does not mandate that a reservation only for a Government run institution is a public purpose. The question as to whether a reservation for a private educational institution can at all constitute a public purpose for the purposes of land acquisition is not res integra but has been considered in several judgments including two judgments of the Supreme Court to which we may presently turn.

       The existence of the college and the upkeep of its facilities or infrastructure is thus something in which the general community has a significant interest. The college is recognised and regulated by competent statutory authorities. The dispensation of education is an important public function. This is an area where private institutions function to discharge a role which should be, but cannot be entirely shouldered by the State institutions discharge a part of the responsibility of the State and it has been held that hence, the restrictions which apply to the latter must apply to the former as well. Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P., Section 125 of the Act provides that any land required, reserved or designated in a Regional Plan. Development Plan or Town Planning Scheme for a public purpose or purposes shall be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Having regard to these facts, the provisions of the Act and the judgments of the Supreme Court there can be no doubt about the fact that the reservation in the present case is for a public purpose.

       MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Section 127 - Urban planning - Reservation of lands for public purpose - Lapsing of reservation - Land not acquired within 10 years - Owner of land can give notice to Planning Authority; Development Authority or Appropriate Authority - No steps for acquisition of land within 6 months - Reservation lapses. - The provisions of Section 127 are attracted where land that is reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under the Act is neither acquired by agreement within 10 years of the date on which the final Regional Plan or final Development Plan comes into force of if proceedings for the acquisition of the land under the Act or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not commenced within the period. The owner or the person interested in the land is then empowered to submit a notice to the planning authority. Development authority or as the case may be, the appropriate authority to that effect. If within six months from the date of service of notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment of designation shall be deemed to have lapsed. The land shall thereupon be deemed to have been released from such reservation allotment or designation. The consequence is that the land becomes available for the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.

        A comparison of the provisions contained in Section 49 with those of Section 127 would be material for the purposes of the present case. Section 127 deals with a specific situation one in which laid which has been reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in the plan under the Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years of the date on which the final Regional Plan or final Development Plan came into force or if proceedings for acquisition of the land are not commenced under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 within ten years. The provisions of Section 127 are thus attracted in a situation where despite the existence of a reservation, designation or allotment the land is not acquired within a period of ten years either by agreement or under the Act of 1894. Section 127, therefore does not come into operation until a period of ten years has elapsed from the date on which the final Regional Plan or final Development Plan has come into force and it is only thereafter that the owner or any person interested in the land is empowered to serve a notice on the planning authority, development authority or appropriate authority as the case may be. Upon the service of a notice under the section upon one of the authorities mentioned therein, the land is to be either acquired or if not acquired at least steps for the acquisition of the land have to be commenced within a period of six months from the service of the notice. If that is not done the section provides that the reservation allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed (emphasis supplied). The reservation allotment or designation which is deemed to have lapsed is specifically that contained in the final Regional Plan or the final Development Plan, as the case may be. Upon the lapsing of the reservation, it is from such reservation, allotment or designation that the land is deemed to be released. The land is then available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. The scheme statutorily enacted in Section 127 of the Act thus demonstrates that the this statutory provision relates to a contingency where the land is not acquired either by statutory prescription or by agreement within a period of ten years of the enforcement of the final Regional Plan or the final Development Plan. The consequence which the statute provides for the failure of the authority to acquire the land or to take steps for its acquisition upon the service of a notice within the prescribed period, is with reference to the lapsing of the reservation allotment or designation in the final plan.

       MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Sections 49 and 127 - Urban Planning - Public purpose - Acquisition of lands - Reservation for - Development Plan - Notice issued under Section 127 - No lapsing of reservation - Owner has remedy to approach State Government under Section 49 of Act. - Section 127 does not impose a fetter on the duty of the public authority to revise the development plan and if it is found so necessary to impose a fresh reservation or to continue the existing reservation if public interest so warrants.

       A period of ten years had elapsed after the final development plan was published on 1st February, 1978. In the Draft Revised Plan of 1988 thereafter the reservation of the land for the purposes of the college of the third respondent continued to subsist. The issuance of the notice under Section 127 will not have the effect of establishing the reservation of the land under the Revised Draft Development Plan. The remedy of the petitioner would to move to the State Government under Section 49 of the Act which it is open for the petitioner to do.

       MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - Section 127 - Urban planning - Reservation of lands for public purpose - Appropriate authority - Purchase notice to municipal council by owner of land - Municipal Council is planning authority - Land reserved for private educational institutions - Not a public authority - Not an appropriate authority - Notice given to municipal council is just and proper. - The expression planning authority is defined by clause 19 of Section 2 to mean a local authority and to include a special planning authority constituted under Section 40 or the Slum Rehabi-litation Authority. The expression local authority is defined by clause 15 of Section 2. There can be no dispute about the position that the third respondent is not the planning authority. Similarly the third respondent cannot be regarded as the Development Authority since that expression in clause 8 means a New Town Development Authority constituted or declared under Section 113. But according in the third respondent it is an appropriate authority within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 2. That expression means any public authority on whose behalf 1 and is designated for a public purpose in any plan or scheme and which it is authorised to acquire. The expression public authority in the absence of a definition provided by the statute must receive its ordinary meaning and if that meaning is ascribed to the term, it would be clear that the third respondent is not a public authority. More-over, the acquiring body in the present case is the municipal council the first respondent though the benefit of the reservation is for the third respondent. The submission sought to be advanced on behalf of the third respondent that the notice under Section 127 was vitiated because it was issued to the first respondent is thus completely unfounded. The petitioner served a notice upon the first respondent which is the planning authority since that expression means a local authority and the legal authority includes a municipal council constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965. The notice was thus correctly served upon the first respondent and there is absolutely no basis in the submission that it ought to have been served on the third respondent for the reason that the third respondent was an appropriate authority.