Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, Kamal Khata, JJ.
Trilok Singh Pahlajsingh Rajpal - Appellant
Vs.
Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, a statutory body constituted under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, having its office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai - Respondent
Writ Petition No.2450 Of 2016
Decided On : 16-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh with Mr. Sahil Gandhi, Ms. Dimple Vora i/b M/s. Markand Gandhi
For the Respondent:Mr. Joquim Reis, senior advocate with Ms. Vandana Mahadik, Ms. Sheetal Metakari i/b Mr. Sunil Sonawane, Mr. Laxmikant Satelkar, A.G.P.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation of land under the MRTP Act can lapse if the necessary steps for acquisition are not taken within the statutory period, and subsequent actions by the authorities cannot reinstate the reservation.

Headnote:
MRTP Act - Lapsing of Reservation - Girnar Traders, Shrirampur Municipal Council, Bhavnagar University, Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Ramakant Vasudeo Pai, Anil Dattatraya Girme, Bombay Salesian Society, Suraiya Akbarali Jetha, Kukreja Constructions Company & Ors, Satish Prakash Rohra, Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Private Limited
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to release their land from reservation made under the Development Plan sanctioned on 7th May 1992. The respondents failed to acquire the property within the statutory period, and the petitioners served a purchase notice on 22nd August 2007. The respondents failed to take the required steps under section 127 of the MRTP Act within the stipulated period, and subsequently issued a notification for acquisition in 2018.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents failed to take the necessary steps for acquisition within the statutory period, and the subsequent actions taken by the respondents did not amount to the 'steps' contemplated for acquisition of the property. The court held that the reservation of the land had lapsed and was released from reservation, and the subsequent reservation made under the new Development Plan was unsustainable in law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the reservation of the land had lapsed and whether the subsequent actions taken by the respondents were in accordance with the provisions of the MRTP Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments including Girnar Traders, Shrirampur Municipal Council, Bhavnagar University, Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Ramakant Vasudeo Pai, Anil Dattatraya Girme, Bombay Salesian Society, Suraiya Akbarali Jetha, Kukreja Constructions Company & Ors, Satish Prakash Rohra, and Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Private Limited to establish that the reservation had lapsed and subsequent actions by the respondents were unsustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directed the State Government to notify the lapsing of the reservation, and ordered that if fresh plans for building permission are submitted by the petitioners, the same be considered expeditiously.

JUDGMENT:

Kamal Khata, J.

1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioners in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for a writ of mandamus declaring that with effect from 22nd February 2008 the land bearing CTS No. F/189, F/190, F/191, F/192 corresponding to Final Plot No.646, T.P.S. No.III, Bandra, Mumbai admeasuring 900 sq. yards equivalent to 752.49 sq. meters along with structures standing thereon (hereinafter referred to as “the said property”) is released from reservation made under the Development Plan sanctioned on 7th May 1992.

3. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus for an order and direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to take all necessary steps to amend the necessary records including Development Plan sanctioned on 7th May 1992 and quashing the acquisition proceedings commenced before respondent No.4 pursuant to the Application dated 13th February 2008 in respect of the said land.

4. The petitioners are the owners of the piece and parcel of land bearing final plot no. 646, TPS III Bandra viz. the said land. It is the case of the petitioners that the requisition has lapsed as the respondents have failed to take steps to acquire the said land under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short, “the MRTP Act”).

5. The factual aspects stated in the Writ Petition are as under:-

(a) By a Deed of conveyance dated 17 July 1978, registered with the sub registrar of assurances under No. 1348 of 1978 made and executed between one Devraj Ranka and others (Vendors) and Pahlajsing Tulsidas Rajpal (Purchasers), the vendors sold all that piece and parcel of land bearing CTS No. F/189, F/190, F/191, F/192 corresponding to final plot No. 646, TPS III, Bandra admeasuring about 900 sq. yards equivalent to 752.49 sq. metres along with structures standing thereon. The name of Pahlajsingh Tulsidas Rajpal was duly mutated on the property card, the town planning records in respect of the said property maintained by respondent no.1. The said property is occupied by tenants/occupants.

(b) On 25th December 1998 Shri Pahlajsingh Rajpal expired leaving the petitioners herein as the only heirs and legal representatives. The petitioners are thus the owners of the said property and their names are duly mutated in the property register card as the owners thereof.

(c) The draft Development Plan was prepared by respondent no. 1 for the entire Greater Mumbai under the provisions of the MRTP Act and in respect of the said property was finally sanctioned by respondent no.5 and brought into force on 7th May 1992. The said property was reserved for a Municipal Primary School as a part of a larger reservation.

(d) Since the respondents failed to acquire the property within 10 years i.e. from 6th May 1992 to 6th May 2002, the petitioners served a purchase notice on 22nd August 2007 calling upon the respondent no.1 to acquire the property within a period of 6 months thereof in accordance with the prevailing law.

(e) The respondent no.1 failed to take any steps to acquire the said property within 6 months i.e. 22nd August 2007 to 21st February 2008.

(f) The petitioners issued a letter dated 25th March 2013 to respondent no.1 to withdraw the purchase notice. Thereafter on 11th June 2014 addressed a letter to respondent no.1 to treat the letter dated 25th March 2013 as cancelled.

(g) On 30th July 2014 the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that with effect from 22nd February 2008 the said property along with the structures standing thereon stand released from reservation made under the Development Plan sanctioned on 7th May 1992.

6. After filing of the petition, the respondent nos. 4 & 5 issued a notification dated 27th July 2018 in the official Gazette dated 2nd – 8th August 2018 under sub-section (4) of section 126 of the MRTP Act read with sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1028

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation of land under the MRTP Act can lapse if the necessary steps for acquisition are not taken within the statutory period, and subsequent actions by the authorities cannot reinstate the reservation.

Cases Referred (7)