Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sunil B.Shukre, Rajesh S.Patil, JJ.
Irfan Allabaksh Shaikh - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner , Solapur Municipal Corporation - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14126 of 2018
Decided On : 13-10-2023
MRTP Act - Building Permission and Land Reservation - Sec. 127 of MRTP Act, 1966 - The court discussed the provisions of Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, which stipulates that if land reserved for a purpose is not acquired within ten years from the implementation of the development plan, the owner may serve notice for cancellation of the reservation. The court interpreted that the ten-year period begins from the date of the development plan's implementation, and any notice issued before this period expires is considered premature. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition, as the notice served by the petitioner was found to be premature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of building permission by the Municipal Corporation on the grounds that the land was reserved for a playground. The petitioner’s father had issued a notice for cancellation of the reservation under Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, but the Municipal Corporation deemed it premature as it was issued within ten years of the development plan's implementation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the purchase notice issued by the petitioner's father was indeed premature as it was sent before the expiration of the ten-year period mandated by Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act. The court also noted that the notice lacked the necessary documentation and was not issued by the actual owner of the land.
Issues: Whether the notice issued under Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act was premature and whether the refusal of building permission was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to issue a purchase notice under Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act arises only after the ten-year period from the implementation of the development plan has expired. Since the notice was issued prematurely, the court concluded that the refusal of building permission was valid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the claims made by the petitioner regarding the premature notice and the refusal of building permission.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
RAJESH S.PATIL, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dtd. 6/6/2016 passed by the Assistant Engineer Municipal Corporation, Solapur, thereby refusing building permission as the plot of land is affected by reservation of play ground; and order dtd. 6/4/2018 passed by the Additional Secretary, State of Maharashtra, Town Planning Department, thereby rejecting the notice issued under Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966 on the ground that the notice is premature by 30 days.
2. On 16/1/1978 the development plan of Solapur was published, wherein CTS No. 6167, Siddheshwar Solapur was reserved at site No.319 as 'play ground', admeasuring 5070 sq. mtrs.
3. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation decided to prepare Draft Development Plan of entire area, ie., old limit+extended limit, vide resolution No.374. Accordingly, notice was published on 22/10/1992 of revised development plan. Objections to the draft development plan were called and notice of the same was published in gazette dtd. 26/3/1999.
4. On 26/6/2001 the Municipal Corporation passed resolution No.163, for cancelling the reservation on CTS No.6167, which was reserved for school, as the said land was not used for play ground, so also to resolve the issue of returning the land to the owner.
5. On 28/10/2004, second development Scheme for Solapur City was sanctioned with certain modifications by the government and the same came into force from 5/12/2004.
6. Petitioner's father, as Power of Attorney holder of then owner, issued a notice under Sec. 127 of MRTP Act, 1966 on 14/11/2014 for cancellation of reservation. The Municipal Corporation had earlier acquired 5 guntas and 116 yard area on 10/11/1949 from the same land, i.e., CTS No.6167, for the purpose of Hindustan school of Nagar Palika.
7. The town planning department by its order dtd. 20/11/2014, sent a letter to the Municipal Corporation, Solapur, informing therein that the father of the Petitioner had sent the notice under Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966 and requested to issue direction to the concerned person to send the proposal for acquisition of land to district collector, so that the resolution does not lapse.
8. The Town Planning Department, by its letter dtd. 17/12/2014 addressed to the father of the Petitioner, directed to submit map and documents of ownership with regards to the communication dtd. 14/11/2014. Responding to the said letter dtd. 17/12/2014, the father of the Petitioner by his covering letter dtd. 24/12/2014, submitted the relevant documents to the town planning department. By notice dtd. 14/1/2015, the father of the Petitioner again sought cancellation of reservation. By another Resolution bearing No.320, the Corporation resolved that there are already existing playgrounds and hence, the Corporation does not need the acquisition of the subject land, so also the Corporation cannot pay the huge amount required for acquisition.
9. By his letter dtd. 14/6/2015, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Solapur, by his letter to the District Collector, asked for raising funds for acquisition. The land coordination officer by his letter dtd. 13/1/2016, addressed to the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Solapur, requested for purchasing the subject land through private agreement. The Town Planning Department, Solapur, by its letter dtd. 3/6/2016 addressed to the father of the Petitioner, directed to accept TDR as compensation for acquisition within 7 days.
10. Shortly thereafter, on 6/6/2016 the Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation refused building permission to the Petitioner's father, on the ground that the said plot is affected by reservation of play ground.
11. The father of the Petitioner replied to the said letter dtd. 3/6/2016, stating therein that the acquisition is lapsed and therefore, the building permission should be granted. Thereafter, the Town Planning Department by its letter dtd. 27/3/2016 addressed to the f
A purchase notice under Sec. 127 of the MRTP Act must be issued after the expiration of ten years from the date of implementation of the development plan; otherwise, it is considered premature and in....
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 acquisit....
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 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 court established that a land reservation does not lapse automatically after ten years without a notice from the landowner, and revised plans do not invalidate existing reservations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation on the land would lapse if the Planning Authority failed to take steps within the specified period, and acquisition would only....
Reservation of land under MRTP Act lapses when authorities fail to act within statutory periods, with no retrospective effect from amendments extending timelines.
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
