Reservation of land under MRTP Act lapses when authorities fail to act within statutory periods, with no retrospective effect from amendments extending timelines.

JUDGMENT :

Vaishali Patil – Jadhav, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs :-

"A) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct Respondents to issue notification declaring that the reservation on Survey No.303/1/1C, situated at Chalisgaon has lapsed as provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

AA) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the re-reservation of the property of the Petitioner bearing No. 303/1/1-C admeasuring 0-H 19.5 R i.e. 20981 sq. ft. Areas of land situated at Chalisgaon in Sanctioned Development Plan dated 06.04.2016 bearing Site No. 46 is bad in law and non-est and hence the said reservation is quashed and set aside."

3. It is the case of the petitioners that lands bearing city Survey No. 303/1/1C and 309, are reserved as Site No. 41 for ‘Play Ground and School’ in the development plan dated 22.12.1989. The petitioners purchased the Survey No. 303/1/1C by the sale deed dated 30.12.2014. Accordingly, entry was made in 7/12 extract wherein it is mentioned in other rights column that the land is reserved for Site No. 41. The Petitioner No. 1 issued purchase notice on 16.02.2015 under Section 127 of MRTP Act. After the purchase notice, Chief Officer sent land acquisition proposal to Collector by letter dated 28.05.2015. Note was also prepared by Special Land Acquisition Officer for seeking consent of the Collector to appoint Sub-Divisional Officer for carrying out acquisition proceeding under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for Site No. 41 Survey No. 303/1/1C. But no further steps were taken. It is the contention of the petitioners that as no steps were taken within 12 months of purchase notice, the reservation has lapsed and the land shall be deemed to have been released from the said reservation.

The revised second development plan got sanction of Government on 06.04.2016 wherein petitioners’ land is reserved for `Primary School and Play Ground’ as Site No. 46. As the petitioners’ have served the purchase notice before the second revised plan was sanctioned, petitioners’ need not wait for another 10 years.

4. The petitioners would submit that the reservation Site No. 41 consists of Survey No. 303/1/1C and 309 total admeasuring 0.45 R. The owner of Survey No. 309 filed Writ Petition No. 3710 of 2014, Chhaya Motichand Bundelkhandi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, before this Hon’ble High Court seeking declaration as per Section 127 of MRTP Act, 1966. The writ petition was allowed on 26.08.2014. As a result, larger portion of 0.25 R land of Site No. 41 is deleted and very small portion of 0.20 R land is left in Site No. 41.

In support of his submissions, petitioners relied on Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2015) 11 SCC 554 and Sadashiv Tryambak Rajebahadur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department and others, 2015(11) SCC 554.

5. Learned counsel for the Municipal Council would submit that the scheme to prepare the revised development plan commenced in the year 2009 and final development plan was sanctioned in the year 2016. He would submit that since the revised development plan was sanctioned on 06.04.2016, the cause of action for the petitioners to issue a notice under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act got extended by a further period of 10 years. Petitioners did not take objection at the relevant time. The notice dated 16.02.2015 is premature and the petition be dismissed. To buttress his submission learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and others, (2015) 11 SCC 90.

6. Learned advocate for Municipal Council would dispute the fac