The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation of land under the MRTP Act can lapse if the land is not acquired within the prescribed period, and the government is duty-bound to notify the lapsing of the reservation.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. Dige, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that the reservation of the Petitioner’s land under the Development Plan of Solapur for 1997- 2007 for the Garden purpose and under the reservation no. E.P. (Exclusion Plan) 87 (12/9) South part, admeasuring 2353 sq. mtrs., situated at New Survey No. 526/2A, (old Survey No.497) village Kasabe Solapur, Tal.North Solapur, Dist.Solapur (for short “the said land”) has lapsed. Petitioner also prays for a direction to the Respondents to forthwith notify the lapsing of reservation of lands in the Official Gazette as required under section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the MRTP Act”) with further direction to the Respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation to grant the necessary development permission to the Petitioner, being the owner of the land, for the purpose of development as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land under the Plan.

3. The Government of Maharashtra (Respondent No.1) vide its Notification dated 28th October, 2004 (Exhibit “A” to the Petition) sanctioned Development Plan for Solapur for 1997-2017 which was brought into effect from 15th December, 2004. The EP for the said land of the Petitioner came into force with effect from 15th November 2008. The Development Plan was submitted to the Government for its approval by the Solapur Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.2, which is the Planning Authority). Under the above Development Plan, the said land of the Petitioner was reserved for Garden.

4. According to the Petitioner, he initially gave purchase Notice dated 26th October, 2018 under sections 49 and 127 of the MRTP Act to the Respondents but the purchase notice given under Section 49 was rejected by the Government- Respondent No. 1 by order dated 13th March, 2019, stating that the market value of the land is not affected due to reservation and that the E.P. for said land of the Petitioner came into force with effect from 15th November, 2008.

5. Petitioner’s land was reserved on 15.11.2008. After a period of 10 years of reservation, on 25th March, 2019 the Petitioner gave a fresh purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the Respondents and also submitted the property card extract, municipal lay out plan, 7/12 extracts, copy of reservation zone certificate, coloured part plan, approved copy of plan, measurement etc.. After the receipt of said purchase notice, no steps have been taken within the period of 24 months, as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

6. Learned Counsel for Petitioner contended that the said land of the Petitioner is reserved for garden purpose for more than ten years, however, neither the said land has been acquired by agreement or by publication of a declaration as contemplated under the provisions of section 126 of the MRTP Act. The notice for purchase was given by the Petitioners to the Respondents as contemplated under section 127 of MRTP Act, however, no steps are taken to acquire said land within a period of 24 months from the date of service of such notice. Vide letter dated 17.12.2018 the Petitioner informed Respondent No.2 Corporation that the Petitioner did not require FSI or TDR and that necessary steps may be taken as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments :

(i) Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2007 (7) SCC 555

(ii) Siddharam Shivappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2016 (1) ABR-555] (Coram : A.S.Oka & K.R. Shriram, JJ.)

(iii) Shrishail Parvati Sahakari Grihanirman