IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

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

2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (A), (B) (i) and (ii), as under:-

“(A) The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby declare that the reservation of “12 Mtrs. Wide DP road” in the Sanctioned Development Plan/Draft Development Plan of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Municipal Corporation out of Gat No.19 of Nakshatrawadi, Tq. And District Aurangabad (writ property) has been lapsed and the land is free from the reservation and available to the petitioner for utilization as per the use permissible to the adjacent land.

(B) The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby:

(i) Direct the respondents to initiate and complete the requisite proceedings as contemplated by Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 within a stipulated period in respect of writ property;

(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the development proposal of the petitioners without insisting for notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act, 1966 in respect of writ property.”

3. The dates and sequence of events, are as under:-

(a) The development plan for the additional area of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation was sanctioned by the Government, on 15.11.1991. The land of the Petitioners situated in Gut No.19 at Nakshatrawadi, admeasuring 53.04 R is affected by the reservation meant for a 12 meters wide road.

(b) Since no development took place, the Petitioners issued a purchase notice on 04.04.2016 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966.

(c) The Municipal Corporation issued a communication to the Petitioners on 02.06.2016, asking for an Akhiv Patrika, Toch map and measurement.

(d) The Petitioners replied to the said communication on 17.08.2017 and pointed out that city survey has not been carried out in respect of the land of the Petitioners and, therefore, the Akhiv Patrika has not been prepared.

(e) Since the planning authority did not take any steps towards acquisition, the Petitioners moved an application dated 03.04.2018, praying for development permission.

(f) This Petition was finally lodged on 14.06.2024.

4. The learned Advocate representing the Municipal Corporation submits that a draft development plan was published on 07.03.2024. Under the revised plan, the reservation with regard to the Petitioners’ writ property for 12 meters wide road, has been maintained. The learned Advocate for the Corporation has, therefore, vehemently prayed that this Petition be dismissed with costs.

5. Keeping in view the above dates and events which are not contradicted, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and others, (2015) 11 SCC 90, would squarely apply. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded in paragraph Nos. 18 to 23, in similar circumstances, as under:-

“18. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the period of ten years under Section 126 of the Act has to be reckoned from the date of coming into force of the initial final development plan and not the revised development plan made under Section 38 of the Act. Any other view, according to the learned counsel, would amount to a perpetual deprivation of the owner of land which, at the same time is also not being put to use for the public purpose specified in the development plan. Section 127 of the Act, it is contended, is a beneficial provision in so far as the land owner is concerned calling for a liberal interpretation of its effect. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the provisions of Section 31(5) of the MRTP Act which contemplates that in so far as reservation of land for public purposes specified in sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 22 is concerned inclusion of such land in th