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.

JUDGMENT

Anil L. Pansare, J.

The issue involved in both the petitions is identical. Hence, they are decided by common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. C. S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Khullarwar, learned counsel for petitioners in Writ Petition No.4479/2019 and Mr. A. S. Dabadghao, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No.1629/2011, Mr. I. J. Damle, learned A.G.P. for respondent-State, Mr. A. M. Kukday, learned counsel for Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Mr. K. P. Mahalle, learned counsel for Nagpur Improvement Trust.

3. The petitioners claim to be owners of lands, which are reserved for park in the Development Plan of Nagpur city, published on 07.01.2000. The petitioners, on 30.07.2003, issued notice under Section 49 of the MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT , 1966 (“MRTP”), requesting the Nagpur Improvement Trust (“NIT”), the Planning Authority to purchase the interest in the land. On 23.03.2004, the State Government confirmed the notice in terms of Section 49 of the MRTP Act. On 19.01.2005, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (“SLAO”) informed the Executive Engineer, NIT that the land is to be acquired by taking resort to provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“Act of 1894”) and in turn on 24.01.2005, the NIT requested the Collector, Nagpur to acquire the land and hand over to it. On 27.01.2005, the SLAO instructed the NIT to deposit 2/3rd amount. The NIT responded saying that it has financial constraints and will generate the funds by developing the land through private operator. Thereafter, on 27.01.2005, the SLAO again instructed the NIT to deposit 2/3rd amount i.e. Rs.5.03 Crores. On 05.05.2006, the SLAO refused to acquire the land for the reason that the NIT failed to deposit the amount even after lapse of one year and three months.

4. It is worth mentioning here that the State Government, while confirming the purchase notice issued by the petitioners, directed NIT to take necessary steps for acquisition of land within one year from the date of confirmation notice. The NIT, however, failed to deposit 2/3rd amount even after lapse of one year and three months. Therefore, the SLAO refused to acquire the land. As such, the Collector, Nagpur, vide communication dated 27.01.2005 had, by referring to Government Resolution dated 14.06.2001, instructed the NIT to deposit 2/3rd amount prior to publication of notice under Section 4 and the remaining amount prior to passing award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. The NIT, however, failed to deposit even 2/3rd amount. It appears that subsequent thereto, NIT had deposited Rs.5.03 Crores. For remaining amount, though efforts were made by NIT to generate funds by developing the park through private agency but failed. Ultimately, NIT took back the amount deposited with the Collector. The end result is that the land has been not acquired for last 25 years.

5. The counsel for petitioners proposed to continue with purchase notice if the respondents are willing to acquire the land. Upon this, we inquired with the counsel appearing for NIT as to whether NIT is in a position to deposit the market price, the counsel answered in the negative. Thus, it appears that the NIT is not in a position to pay market price. In turn, there arises no question of continuation of acquisition proceedings.

6. Mr. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel has invited our attention to Section 49 (7), of the MRTP which provides that if within one year from the date of confirmation of notice, the appropriate authority fails to make an application to acquire the land in respect of which the purchase notice has been confirmed as required under Section 126 , the reservation, designation, allotment, etc. or restriction of development of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. He submits that since no effective steps were taken by the NIT even after confirmation notice within one year, the reservation under question stood lapsed.

7. As against, Mr. K. P. Mahalle, learned counsel for th