SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13965 of 2024
Decided On : 17-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ashutosh Kulkarni, Irfan Unwala, Shaheen S. Kapadia
For the Respondents: O.A. Chandurkar, S.P. Kamble, Shakuntala Wadekar

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 land released for permissible development.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 125, 126, 127 - Lapsing of reservations - Land reserved in development plan for housing for dishoused since 1978, revised in 2005-06 - No steps for acquisition within 10 years - Purchase notice served in 2021 - Planning authority failed to acquire or commence acquisition within 24 months - Defect in notice for absence of title documents or detailed property description including measurement sheet not a valid defence post-lapse period - Reservation deemed lapsed by operation of law, land released for development permissible for adjacent land - Government to notify under Section 127(2). (Paras 7, 8, 17-21, 26-28)

(B) Land Acquisition - Steps for acquisition - Must be effective steps under Section 126 like Section 6 declaration under LA Act, not mere application or resolution - Plural 'steps' implies substantive action towards acquisition. (Paras 23-24)

Facts of the case:
Land sold to petitioners in 1991, reserved under 1978 development plan coming into force 1st March 1978, partially revised 29th June 2005 (force 27th August 2005), remaining part 18th August 2006 (force 1st November 2006). First purchase notice 2nd October 1998, second 2nd August 2021. No acquisition or development steps till filing of writ on 23rd September 2024.

Findings of Court:
Reservation lapsed under Section 127; planning authority to communicate to State within 30 days, State to notify within 60 days thereafter.

Issues: Whether reservation lapsed due to failure to act post-purchase notice; whether defective purchase notice (lacking title documents, property details) prevents deeming of lapse.

Ratio Decidendi: Lapsing triggered by inaction within 24 months of notice; authority cannot raise notice defects after expiry of time, as documents aid title transfer only if acquired - purpose is to release land on non-acquisition.

Result: Writ petition allowed in terms of prayers (b) and (c); rule made absolute.

Table of Content
1. petition invokes section 127 for lapsed reservation due to inaction (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. section 127 lapses reservation post 24 months after purchase notice (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. council claims purchase notice defective lacking title and details (Para 9 , 10)
4. petitioners argue defect irrelevant; cite precedents for lapse (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. undisputed receipt of notice after 10-year period (Para 14)
6. jayantilal holds lapse for similar inaction post-notice (Para 15 , 16)
7. notice defect no defense after acquisition inaction period (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. supreme court mandates strict mrtp acquisition timelines (Para 23 , 24)
9. reservation lapsed by law; petitioners entitled to release (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
10. writ allowed; notify de-reservation under section 127(2) (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

1. By order dated 10th March, 2025, this Writ Petition is ‘Admitted’.

2. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

3. The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (b) and (c), as under :

“(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, and or direction to declare that the reservation, designation or allotment provided under the development plan revised development plan of the Respondent No. 3 in respect of property lying, being and situated at Lonavala within Registration Sub-District of Maval, Dist: Pune and within the local limits of Lonavala Municipal Council in its ward “A” at Bhangarwadi and known as Nangargaon in the revenue record bearing part of Survey No. 55 admeasuring 88.29 ares within the jurisdiction of Lonavala Municipal Council is lapsed and said reserved land is available to the Petitioners for the purpose of development or otherwise, as is permissible.

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, and or direction to declare that the said reserved land in respect of property lying, being and situated at Lonavala within Registration Sub- District of Maval, Dist: Pune and within the local limits of Lonavala Municipal Council in its ward “A” at Bhangarwadi and known as Nangargaon in the revenue record bearing part of Survey No. 55 admeasuring 88.29 ares within the jurisdiction of Lonavala Municipal Council has been de-reserved under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act as per the purchase notice dated 02.08.2021 for want of valid steps by Lonavala Municipal Council.”

4. The above prayer clauses indicate that the Petitioners have invoked the deeming fiction of lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT , 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the MRTP Act”), since the Respondents have taken no steps for the acquisition of the land in question.

5. The material facts, dates, and sequence of events necessary to determine the controversy between the parties are as follows:

(a) Initially, Shri Narayan Damodar Bhonde and five others were the owners of the property bearing part of Survey No. 55, admeasuring 88.29 R, situated at Nangargaon, within the local limits of the Lonavala Municipal Council (for short “Council”), Ward ‘A’, Bhangarwadi (for short, “the land”). Who, by registered Sale Deed No. 145, dated 4th March, 1991, sold the land to the Petitioners. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the Petitioners claim ownership of the land.

(b) The Respondent No. 1-State sanctioned and published the Development Plan (for short, "the DP Plan”) vide Government Resolution No. TPS/1876/9/4D, dated 28th February, 1978, and the same came into force on 1st March, 1978.

(c) Respondent No. 3- Council failed to take steps for the acquisition or development of the land up to 1st October, 1998.

(d) On 2nd October, 1998, the Petitioners issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act to Respondent No. 3, which was neither complied with nor any steps were taken to acquire or develop the land.

(e) Thereafter, the said DP Plan was partially

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top