IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.A. SAYED, ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
Saurabh R. Shah – Appellant
Versus
The Urban Development and Town Planning Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2021
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 127, 126, Section 126 (2), 126 (3), 126(4), 52, 53, 54 and 55 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 19 - Land Acquisition Act - Section 6 - Lapsing of reservations - Power of High court to issue writ - Petitioner that development plan was sanctioned - land along with structure standing thereon was purchased by Petitioner vide a deed of conveyance - After issuance of Notification, Respondents No. 1 to 3 had not taken any steps under provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of MRTP Act for acquisition of said land - Petitioner therefore vide purchase notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act, requested Respondents No. 2 and 3 to acquire said land by paying appropriate compensation within a period of 24 months failing which, said reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed - Period of twenty four months from date of purchase notice ended - It is an admitted position that no proceedings have been taken by Respondents for acquisition of said land - Whether Reservation in respect of a land has lapsed or not it is irrelevant whether there is a structure on land or not - Whether Respondent No. 1 had started digging work or whether any digging is going on.
Findings of the Court:
Court have observed that period of 24 months from purchase notice expired leading to lapsing of reservation in question, it would not matter what steps Respondents are seeking to take post such lapsing pursuant to notices as all these dates are post expiry of 24 months as contemplated in section 127 of MRTP Act and we therefore do not consider it necessary to deal with said notices or even going into the question whether Respondent No. 1 had started digging work or whether any digging is going on.
Result: Writ Petition stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of Counsel for the parties heard finally.
2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking a declaration from this Court that the reservation made on the land owned by the Petitioner on Survey No. 198, Hissa No. 3/2, situate at Village-Sandor, Bhabola Road, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar (the “said land”) within the limits of Vasai Virar Sub-Region, reserved for water bodies/20 meter water channel and 20 and 30 meters D.P. Road has lapsed and therefore, the said land be released from the reservation in accordance with the provisions under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (the “MRTP Act”).
3. It is the case of Petitioner that the development plan for Vasai Virar was sanctioned on 9th February 2007. The said land along with structure standing thereon was purchased by Petitioner vide a deed of conveyance dated 6th September 2014. After the issuance of the Notification dated 9th February 2007, the Respondents No. 1 to 3 had not taken any steps under the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act for acquisition of the said land. The Petitioner therefore vide purchase notice dated 18th April 2017 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, requested the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to acquire the said land by paying appropriate compensation within a period of 24 months failing which, the said reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed. The said period of twenty four months from the date of purchase notice ended on 17th April 2019. It is an admitted position that no proceedings have been taken by the Respondents for acquisition of the said land.
4. It is submitted on behalf of Petitioner that however, pursuant to notices dated 24th December 2019, 3rd March 2020 and 4th May 2020, by Respondent No. 2 alleging that there was reservation of 20 meter water channel on the said land, on 5th June 2020, the Respondent No. 1 demolished the compound wall of Petitioner and started digging work for the proposed water channel without acquiring the said land. It is submitted that after the digging work for the water channel was completed, the Respondent No. 1 left the site without constructing the compound wall and or covering the water channel with RCC cover/slab. It is apprehended that if the digging work still continues even without acquiring the said land, the Respondents will dispossess Petitioner from his own property without even acquiring the said land and without paying the compensation. It is, under these circumstances, that the Petitioner has filed this Petition essentially seeking the following reliefs:
(c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to forthwith notify the lapsing of the said reservation in respect of the said land by issuing appropriate notification in the official gazette.”
5. Mr. Gorwadkar, learned Senior Counsel submits on behalf of Petitioner that the aforesaid notices by Respondent No. 2 are post the twenty four months period from the issuance of the purchase notice which ended on 17th April 2019. He submits that the Collector had neither taken any steps under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act nor under Section 19 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 nor any notification has been issued thereunder to acquire the said land. He draws the attention of this Court to Se
Land in question had lapsed by operation of Section 127 of MRTP Act and land has become available to Petitioner to be used as permissible in law.
Reservation lapses under Section 127 MRTP Act if no acquisition steps within 24 months of purchase notice, even if notice lacks title documents or detailed description, as authority's inaction deems ....
Reservation of land lapses under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act when no acquisition steps are taken within the specified period after a purchase notice is served.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the legislative intent behind the MRTP Act is to expeditiously acquire reserved land and safeguard the rights of landowners against arbitrary ....
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-boun....
The court held that a reservation under the MRTP Act lapses if the authority fails to acquire the land within ten years, as mandated by Section 127.
Failure to initiate acquisition steps within the stipulated time under the MRTP Act results in lapsing of land reservation, protecting landowners' rights.
The court established that under Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, if land reserved for a public purpose is not acquired within a specified period after notice, the reservation lapses, allowing the landowner....
Failure to initiate acquisition proceedings within the stipulated time under the MRTP Act results in lapsing of land reservation, allowing the owner to develop the property.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.