IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ
Sopan Trambak Wani - Appellant
Versus
Director Of Town Planning, ] Maharashtra State, Central Bldg., Pune - Respondent
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1479 OF 2023
Decided On : 21-01-2025
(A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 126 and 127 - Writ of mandamus sought for lapsing of land reservation - Petitioner’s land reserved for public purpose not acquired within stipulated time - Court held that failure to initiate acquisition proceedings results in lapsing of reservation. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
(B) Land Acquisition - Legislative intent for timely acquisition - Court emphasized that mere resolutions or letters do not constitute steps towards acquisition; actual steps must be taken to avoid indefinite deprivation of property rights. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner owned land reserved for a garden under the MRTP Act, which was not acquired by the Respondents despite notice. The Respondents cited financial constraints for inaction.
Findings of Court:
The Respondents failed to acquire the Petitioner’s land within the required period, leading to the conclusion that the reservation had lapsed.
Issues: Whether the Respondents took necessary steps for acquisition within the stipulated time and the implications of their failure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the reservation lapses if the authority does not take steps for acquisition within the specified timeframe, emphasizing the need for actual acquisition steps rather than mere applications.
Result: Petition allowed; reservation of land declared lapsed.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. GADKARI, J.
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned Advocates for the respective parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus for direction to declare that, the land owned by him bearing Survey No.228/1+2/2, (Final Plot No.91), admeasuring 0.30 Ares (300 sq.mtrs.), situated within the municipal limits of Respondent No.6, stands lapsed and the same is available to the Petitioner and for other consequential reliefs.
3) Heard Mr. Gavnekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Smt. Thakur, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. Keluskar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.6. Perused entire record.
4) Petitioner is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 228/1+2/2 (Final Plot No.91), admeasuring 0.30 Ares (300 sq.mtrs.) situated within the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.6. The said plot of land has been shown to be reserved for ‘Garden’ vide Site No. 110, as per the First Development Plan sanctioned in the year 1970 for the city of Malegaon under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “MRTP Act”).
4.1) The First Revised Development Plan was sanctioned on 1st April 1986, which came into effect from the very same date. That, the Second Revised Development Plan was published on 15th September 2006 in the Government Gazette. The said Second Revised Development Plan was finalized for the city of Malegaon on 21st August 2009 and came into force with effect from 12th October 2009. The Petitioner’s property was and is shown to be reserved for the purpose of garden under Site No. 110 under the said plan.
4.2) It is the case of the Petitioner that, though his property is reserved for public purpose, the Respondents did not take any steps to acquire the said property, as contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act and therefore the Petitioner issued notice dated 30th July 2020 to Respondent No.6, which was duly served upon the Respondent No.6.
4.3) After receipt of the said notice dated 30th July 2020, it was placed for consideration before the General Body of Respondent No.6, in its meeting dated 30th November 2021. The General Body of Respondent No. 6 considered the said notice and by its Resolution No. 267 recorded its inability to acquire the land of the Petitioner for its poor / unsatisfactory financial condition.
4.4) The period of 24 months as contemplated under Section 127 (1) of the said Act came to an end on 30th July 2022, however the Respondent No.6 i.e. the Planning Authority did not take any steps to acquire the Petitioner’s said property.
4.5) Petitioner therefore filed present Petition on 17th January 2023 for the reliefs as noted hereinabove.
5) Mr. Gavnekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner submitted that, when a site is reserved for public purpose, it is incumbent that the proceedings be initiated for compulsory acquisition of such land is required to be acquired by the Authorities within specified period, as contemplated under Section 126 of the said Act. That, in the event, no acquisition is made by the Planning Authority, owners of such sites can issue a notice calling upon the Authority to confirm whether they intend to purchase property for the public purpose for which it is earmarked. That, if such a notice is confirmed by the Authority, it is obligatory on such Authority to make an application to acquire such land within a period of 24 months from the date of confirmation of notice, as contemplated under Section 127(1) of the said Act. That, if there is failure on the part of Appropriate Authority to make such application within the aforestated period, it is provided that, the land earmarked or designated for a particular purpose shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the land shall be declared to be released from reservation or designation as the case may be and the said land shall become available to the o
Failure to initiate acquisition proceedings within the stipulated time under the MRTP Act results in lapsing of land reservation, allowing the owner to develop the property.
Failure to initiate acquisition steps within the stipulated time under the MRTP Act results in lapsing of land reservation, protecting landowners' rights.
The court held that failure of the Planning Authority to take effective steps for land acquisition within the statutory period results in the lapsing of the reservation under the MRTP Act.
The court held that a reservation under the MRTP Act lapses if the authority fails to acquire the land within ten years, as mandated by Section 127.
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.
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 ....
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 court established that failure to act within statutory timelines for land acquisition results in the lapsing of reservations, allowing landowners to utilize their property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, if no steps for the acquisition of land reserved for public purposes ar....
Failure of the planning authority to acquire land within statutory timelines results in the lapse of the reservation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.