IMPORTANT POINT
The legal principle established is that once a legal embargo is put on reserved land under the MRTP Act, no further period can be extended beyond the stipulated period, and the reservation will be deemed to have lapsed if the land is not acquired within the specified time.

JUDGMENT :

Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioners have put-forth prayer clauses (B) and (C) as under:

“(B) The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, and thereby declare that the land Gat No. 27/3 admeasuring 2 H 06 R situated at Khedi Budruk, Taluka & District Jalgaon, is free from any encumbrance of reservation more particularly from reservation no. 223 (Play Ground) as reserved in final development plan of Jalgaon (Additional Area).

(C) The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, and direct the respondents to notify the lapsing of reservation by publishing notification in Official Gazette under section 127(2) of MRTP Act, forthwith.”

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners canvassed that, Respondent No. 5 published the development plan on 10.08.2004, which came into force w.e.f. 01.10.2004. Under the development plan, the Petitioners’ land is shown under reservation No. 223 for play ground and 18 meter D.P. Road. However, even after lapse of more than 14 years, Respondent No. 5 Municipal Corporation failed to acquire said land. Therefore, on 17.03.2018, the Petitioners were issued purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, which was duly served upon Respondent no. 5, but no land has been acquired within period of two years from the service of notice. Therefore, reservation lapsed.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 vehemently canvassed that presently Respondent No. 5 Municipal Corporation is facing financial crises and due to paucity of fund, no compensation for acquisition of the reserved land can be paid. However, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 submits that, the land show under reservation is required, hence, prayed for grant of one year time for the acquisition of the same. In support of these submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar, (2019) 14 SCC 411.

5. Having considered the strenuous submissions of both sides, we have gone through the record. Though the Respondents have been granted opportunity, they failed to file a reply. On the face of the record, the following dates and events are undisputed:

(a) The development plan of the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation was sanctioned on 10-08-2004 and the same came into force on 01-10-2004.

(b) Vide reservation no. 223, the Petitioner's land bearing Gat No. 27/3 ad-measuring 2 H 06 R situated at Khedi Budruk, Taluka and District Jalgaon, was reserved for a Play Ground.

(c) No steps for acquisition were taken within a period of more than ten years.

(d) The Petitioner issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 17.03.2018 along with copy of 7/12 extract of the land, which has duly served upon Respondent no. 5 Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, but no steps for acquisition of land have been initiated.

6. It is obvious that the Respondent No. 5 Municipal Corporation has not initiated specific steps for acquisition of the said land as is required under Section 126(2). The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555 and by this Court in Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave and Others vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation, 2023 (2) Bom. C.R. 469, is squarely applicable.

7. Needless to say that, Respondent no. 5 contended that it requires further period of one year to complete acquisition proceeding of reserved land and to pay compensation due to it’s poor financial condition.

8. On perusal of facts the case of Laxmikant and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2022 SCC Online 349, it appears that vide order dated 6.8.2021 passed this court had granted one year time to acquire land once reserved b