Sanction of revised development plan after purchase notice but before 24-month expiry under MRTP Act Section 127 continues reservation for fresh 10 years, as no vested right accrues until period lapses without acquisition steps.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

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

2. By an order dated 29^th July 2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, while hearing Writ Petition No.5180 of 2022, the Registry was directed to place that Petition before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for directions under Rule 8 of Chapter I, of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. For ready reference, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the said order here under :

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The development plan for Pune was initially finalised on 8 July 1966, reserving the Petitioner’s property for the public purpose of the Primary School. After following the necessary procedures, this plan was revised effective 5 January 1987, maintaining the same reservation.

3. On 28th March 2013, a notice was issued under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “MRTP Act”) proposing to revise the above plan. However, before the revision could be finalised, the Petitioners issued a notice on 23rd May 2015, which the Planning Authority received on 26th May 2015 under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, urging the purchase of the said property.

4. Under the amendment to the MRTP Act, the 12- month period prescribed in Section 127(1) for taking steps to purchase was enhanced to 24 months, effective from 29 August 2015. There is no dispute that this 24-month notice period under the amendment would govern the present case. 5. The revisions to the development plan were finalised on 5 January 2017, before the expiry of the 24-month notice period, which was 22 May 2017.

6. The Petitioner’s case is that the notice dated 23rd May 2015, issued by the Petitioner, neither lapses nor is rendered ineffective on account of the revision of the development plan effective from 5th January 2017. The Petitioner contends that on the expiry of 24 months, i.e. on 22 May 2017, the reservation lapses because, in the meantime, the Planning Authority has failed to take steps to acquire the said property as contemplated under the scheme of Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act.

7. At least prima facie, the petitioner’s contentions find support in the decisions of the Coordinate Division Bench in the case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave & Ors. Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom. 5273 and Sadashiv Tryambak Rajebahadur & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom. 999 In similar facts, these decisions have held that the reservation lapses if no steps are taken by the planning authority to acquire the property.

8. However, Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), which is the Planning Authority, relied upon the decisions of yet another Coordinate Bench in the case of Salim Nizam Sanadi & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation, Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City & Ors., 2019(2) All MR 630 and Shri. Amuksidha Shrikant Majge and Anr. vs. Commissioner, Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation, Sangli and Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom. 2844 to contend that once the revisions in the development plan are finalised, subsequent reservation of land by the revised Development Plan would be the fresh starting point for the period prescribed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. This means that as long as the period of 10 years from the finalisation of the revised Development Plan has not expired, th