Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Arun R. Pedneker, JJ.
Madanlal Zumberlal Nahar - Petitioners
Versus
The Chief Officer Municipal Council Beed Tal & Dist: Beed – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2260 Of 2010, Writ Petition No.4232 Of 2008
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Reservation Lapsing - Land Reservation - 31, 38, 126, 127 - The court examined the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, particularly Sections 31, 38, 126, and 127. The court considered the scope of Section 127 and its applicability in various judgments, including Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’ Association, Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra, Hasmukhrai V. Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Bhirulal (Bherulal) s/o Premchand Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra. The court also referred to the case of Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and others, which clarified the issuance of a fresh notice under Section 127 after the revised development plan comes into effect. The court concluded that the notices issued by the petitioners were premature and invalid, and there was no lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the 1966 Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a declaration that their land reserved for a public purpose under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 had lapsed and should be declared free for development. The petitioners had issued purchase notices under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, but the authorities had not taken steps for acquisition within the stipulated period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notices issued by the petitioners were premature and invalid, and there was no lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. The court also referred the matter to a larger bench to consider the issue of whether the High Court can lawfully declare lands reserved for a public purpose free from reservation in absence of a valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act.
Issues: The court examined the validity of the notices issued by the petitioners under Section 127 of the 1966 Act and the applicability of Section 127 in declaring reserved lands free from reservation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notices issued by the petitioners were premature and invalid, and there was no lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. The court also referred the matter to a larger bench to consider the issue of declaring lands reserved for a public purpose free from reservation in absence of a valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act.
Final Decision: The court found that the notices issued by the petitioners were premature and invalid, and there was no lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. The court also referred the matter to a larger bench to consider the issue of whether the High Court can lawfully declare lands reserved for a public purpose free from reservation in absence of a valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act.
JUDGMENT :
(Arun R. Pedneker, J.) :
1. Present Writ Petitions are filed for a declaration that the reservation of the Petitioners’ land of 0.74 Hector in District Beed, Maharashtra, for a public purpose under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred as ‘1966 Act’) has lapsed and that the reserved land should be declared free for development.
2. The Petitioners in the Writ Petitions pray for the following reliefs:-
d. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ petition the respondent authorities be restrained for acquiring the land of the petitioner to the extent of 74 R. situated at Taraf Giram, Beed for any development purpose.”
3. Heard Mr. S. S. Bora for the Petitioners, Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for the Respondent / State and Mr. G. K. Naik Thigale, for the Respondent No.1, Municipal Council, Beed.
4. Facts leading to the filing of Writ Petitions can be summarized as under:-
B. The development plan of Beed was revised and sanctioned by the State Government through it’s Urban Development Department vide Notification No. TPS-3396/CR-180/96/UD-9 dated 08.09.1997 and came into force with effect from 15.10.1997. Certain portion of the excluded part of the earlier development plan was sanctioned vide Government Notification No. TPS-339/608/Cr-82(A)/99/UD-30, dated 10.05.2001. In the revised development plan (excluded part) dated 10.05.2001, the Petitioners land was reserved for ‘Postal Department Quarter’, as Site No.2 by reducing the area from 0.92 Hector to 0.74 Hector. The said revised development plan (excluded part) came into force from 01.07.2001.
C. The Petitioners served purchase notice dated 29.06.2006 on the planning authority and also on the development authority under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. As no steps were taken by the authorities to acquire the reserved land within the stipulated period, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4232 of 2008 for above mentioned reliefs. The Petitioners, thereafter, served another purchase notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act on 17.03.2009. On completion of period mentioned in the purchase notice and as no steps were taken by the authorities to acquire the reserved land within the stipulated period, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.2260 of 2010 for the same reliefs mentioned above.
5. In the factual background above, the learned Counsel for Petitioners Mr. Bora, submits that the final development plan for Beed came into existence w.e.f. 16.08.1975 and the Petitioners land to the extent of 0.74 Hector continued to be under reservation for different public purposes for more than 47 years and the Petitioners have issued purchase notices under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. However, no steps for acquisition are taken till date by the Respondents / Authorities and thus the land be declared to be free from reservation and the Petitioners be permitted to develop the same.
6. Mr. Bora further submits that revised development plan (excluded part) was sanctioned on 10.05.2001 and even from this stage more than 21 years have lapsed but no steps are taken by the authorities for acquiring the Petitioners lan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for the lapsing of reservation of land....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation would lapse on the expiry of the prescribed period, and any subsequent revision of the Development Plan would not revive or ex....
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....
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 the interpretation of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and its application to the issuance of a purchase notice....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
