The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation of land under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act can lapse if the acquiring authority fails to take steps for acquisition within the prescribed period after the issuance of a valid Purchase Notice under Section 127 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

[Kamal Khata, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for respondents waive service.

2. The present four Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of mandamus for a declaration that the reservation of (i) agricultural property being Survey No.898/1 admeasuring 02 Hectares, 48 Ares equivalent to 25100 sq.mtrs. (W.P. No.8756/2018) (ii) agricultural property being Survey No.898/2 admeasuring 02 Hectares, 20 Ares equivalent to 22,000 sq.mtrs. (W.P. No.9000/2018) (iii) agricultural property being Survey No.898/3 admeasuring 02 Hectares, 20 Ares equivalent to 22,000 sq.mtrs. (W.P. No.8758/2018) (iv) immovable non-agricultural property being Survey No.33/2+3 admeasuring 1500 sq.mtrs. stands lapsed, as no steps have been taken by the respondents within a period of 24 months from the date of Purchase Notice given to Respondent No. 1 under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (for short, “MRTP Act”) and, consequently, permit them to develop their lands.

BRIEF FACTS :

3. Since the facts of W.P. No.8756/2018, W.P. No.9000/2018 and W.P. No.8758/2018 are similar, for convenience, the facts in the first petition have been adverted to. The petitioners are the owners of the agricultural property bearing Survey No. 898(1) admeasuring 02 H. 48 Ares equivalent to 25,100 sq. mtrs assessed at Rs.05.75paise situated in Nashik and within the limits of Nashik Municipal Corporation (for short “the writ land”). The development plan for Nashik city prepared under Section 26 of the MRTP Act was sanctioned as per Section 31 of MRTP Act on 20th June 1993 and came into effect on 16th November 1993. An area of 12,878.00 sq.mtrs. came to be reserved for “Housing for Dishoused” (HD) vide Reservation No.390, which was published in the Government Gazette on 30th September 1993. The writ land is under Reservation No.390 since 16th November 1993.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they could not develop their land on account of the reservation for a period of 10 years i.e. upto 16th November 2003, within which period, the respondents were required to acquire. Since, even after the expiry of the statutory period, the respondents failed to acquire or even take steps towards it, the petitioners through their Advocates letter dated 14th July 2015 issued a Purchase Notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, duly received by the Respondent No.1 on 15th July 2015, calling upon the respondent No.1 to acquire the writ land within the statutory period, failing which the reservation would stand lapsed. However, by an Ordinance dated 29th August 2015, respondent No. 4 extended the Purchase Notice period from 12 months to 24 months by amending provision of sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

5. In response to the Purchase Notice, respondent No.1 offered Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificate instead of compensation, provided the petitioners were willing to handover possession of the writ land. The petitioners refused to accept the proposal of respondent No. 1 in its letter dated 6th October 2015. Being aggrieved by the continuation of reservation on the writ land in spite of objections raised before the competent authority, they filed the present petition on 18th January 2018.

6. A reply is filed by one Chandrashekhar Bhaguji Aher on behalf of respondent No.3 on 20th November, 2021. It is the case of the respondents that in pursuance to the Purchase Notice dated 14th July 2015 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act a response was given by respondent Nos.1 to 3 by its letter dated 3rd July 2015 whereby the petitioners were asked for certain documents, which were required to prove their ownership in respect of the writ property. By the said letter, the Municipal Corporation had also offered Transferable Development Rights (TDR) as compensation for the writ property.

7. The petitioners in response to the letter dated 3rd July, 2015, refused to submit any further do