Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 969
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, Madhav J Jamdar, JJ.
Ramakant Vasudeo Pai - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition (S T) No. 1497 of 2020
Decided On : 25-09-2020
Rohaan Cama, Advocate, Prateek Pai, Advocate, Sita Kapadia, Advocate, Shashwat Rai, Advocate, Alefiyah Shipchandler, Advocate, Keystone Partners, Advocate, Aniruddha Garge, Advocate, Anushree Koparkar, Advocate, A.A. Purav, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and the legal principles derived from various Supreme Court judgments.
Headnote:
Reservation Lapse - Land Reservation - Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 127 of the MRTP Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and its application in the case. The judgment highlighted the legal principles established by various Supreme Court judgments and their influence on the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought declaration that the reservation of their land for extension of a public primary school had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The land was reserved for over 42 years, and the Petitioner issued a purchase notice in 2017, which expired in 2019 without acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reservation of the Petitioner's land had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act due to the failure to acquire the land within the statutory period. The court directed the State Government to notify the lapsing of the reservation and consider the Petitioner's building permission plans.
Issues: The issues involved the lapse of land reservation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act and the compliance with the statutory provisions for land acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reservation of the land had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act due to the failure to acquire the land within the statutory period, as per established legal principles.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition, directed the State Government to notify the lapsing of the reservation, and instructed expedited consideration of the Petitioner's building permission plans.
JUDGMENT
Madhav J. Jamdar, J. - Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally. In the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking declaration that the reservation in respect of the Petitioner's land bearing Survey No. 21/2/C, admeasuring 1,170.92 square meters situated at village Lonavala, District Pune reserved for the purpose of extension of public primary school has lapsed as per the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTP Act').
2. The Petitioner interalia has set out in the Writ Petition following factual aspects:-
(i) The Petitioner is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 21/2/C, admeasuring 1,170.92 square meters situated at village Lonavala, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Plot') The same was purchased by the Petitioner from one Jaidev Singh (erstwhile owner), under an Agreement for Sale dated 3rd February, 1995 and subsequent registered Sale Deed dated 6th July, 1998.
(ii) Earlier Survey No. 21 (Larger Land) was shown as reserved for residential purposes in the Development Plan for Lonavala. The Development Plan was thereafter revised and republished on 1stFebruary, 1978 ("1978 DP") wherein the said larger land including said plot was shown as reserved for the purpose of extension of public primary school and extension of playground of the said public primary school. Adjacent to the said larger land, a public/Municipal school is standing on a plot of land bearing CTS No. 169 and 169/1.
(iii) Between 1984 and 1988, the Respondent No.2 took some steps to acquire some other portion of said larger land. However, no steps were taken to acquire said plot.
(iv) On 10th February, 1994, revised Development Plan for Lonavala ("1994 DP") was published, wherein the said larger land including the said plot was shown as reserved for extension of the said public primary school.
(v) On 18th November, 2002, the Petitioner served a purchase notice interalia under Section 49 of the MRTP Act. By an order dated 23rd March, 2003, the Director, Town Planning disposed of the said purchase notice and directed the Respondent No.2 to complete the acquisition of said plot within a period of six months. As the Respondent No.2 failed to complete acquisition within the said period of six months the Petitioner called upon the authorities to pass an order declaring that the reservation of the said plot had lapsed. However, no further action was taken by the Authorities. Therefore, the Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7538 of 2007 seeking declaration that the reservation of said plot lapsed. The said Writ Petition by order dated 8th April, 2008 was admitted and pending for final disposal.
(vi) The said existing public primary school was demolished and new building of public primary school has been erected between 2016 to April -2019. The said public primary school has been constructed on the very same plot of land on which it was earlier stood viz. CTS No. 169 and 169/1. Thus, the said plot is not required for the purpose for which the same is reserved i.e. for the extension of public primary school.
(vii) As the said land was not required for extension of public primary school for which the same was reserved, the Petitioner made application on 30th March, 2016 to the Respondent No. 3 seeking development permission which was rejected on 13th April, 2016 as the said land was reserved under the Development Plan. The Petitioner challenged the said rejection dated 13th April, 2016 by preferring an Appeal under the provisions of the MRTP Act, however, the said Appeal was rejected by order dated 13th December, 2016.
(viii) On 20th December, 2017, the Petitioner addressed notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the Respondent No.2 and 3 interalia stating that the said notice be treated as notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act and asking the
