SACHIN JANARDAN DAIVADNYA AND ANOTHERversusICHALKARANJI MUNICIPAL COPERATION THR ADMINISTRATOR COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

2026:BHC-KOL:8149-DB

                                                                          908-WP-11370-2025.doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 11370 OF 2025


               Sachin Janardan Daivadnya And Anr.                             ...Petitioners
                         Versus
               Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation Thr Administrator ...Respondents
               Commissioner And Ors.

                                                 ——————
               Mr. Tejpal Ingale a/w Mr. Aryan Sawant, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. R. P. Kadam, “B” Panel counsel for the Respondent-State.
               Mr. Aditya Raktade, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
                                                 ——————
                                                    Coram :    SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                               NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                    Date     : AUGUST 27, 2026
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the Petitioners seek a declaration of

               lapsing of reservation in respect of the Petitioner's land bearing

               Revision Survey No. 689/A/3 admeasuring about 2,000 square meters,

               situated at Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur, reserved for a high school and

               playground in the sanctioned Development Plan (“D.P.”) (revised) of

               Ichalkaranji City.

               2.        Briefly stated, the facts as set out in the Petition are that on 25 th

               May, 1981, in the sanctioned D.P., which came into force on 1 st August,

               1981, the Petitioner's land was reserved for a high school and



               Arya Chavan                          1 of 7
                                                      908-WP-11370-2025.doc


playground as Reservation Site No. I/10. In the revised D.P. of

Ichalkaranji City, sanctioned on 24 th May, 2012, the reservation of the

Petitioner's land continued. On 10 th July, 2022, the period of 10 years

from the sanction of D.P. expired, however, no steps were taken to

acquire and utilize the land by Respondent No. 1-Corporation for the

public purpose. On 5th June, 2023, a purchase notice was served by the

Petitioner under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, 1966 (for short “MRTP Act”) to acquire the land within the

statutory period of two years. By notification under Section 26 of the

MRTP Act dated 15th February, 2024, a revision of the D.P. was

undertaken in which the Petitioner's land was put under a proposed

reservation for playground partially and proposed 24 feet wide D.P.

road. Despite the expiry of period of 24 months, no steps were taken to

acquire the land under reservation. Hence, the present Petition came to

be filed.

3.       Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that considering

the timelines, the reservation has lapsed as despite the service of the

purchase notice of 5th June, 2023, no steps were taken for acquisition of

the land under reservation. He would submit that it is well settled by

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bavnagar

University vs Palitana Sugar Mills(P) Ltd. And Others 1, and also by this

1    2003 (2) SCC 11


Arya Chavan                       2 of 7
                                                       908-WP-11370-2025.doc


Court      in    Baburao   Dhondiba   Salokhe   vs   Kolhapur   Municipal

Corporation, Kolhapur And Others2 that once the reservation of land

under sanctioned D.P. is deemed to have lapsed by reason of non-

acquisition within the statutory period, the reservation which is deemed

to have lapsed cannot be taken away by putting the land under

reservation once again in revised D.P. He would submit that therefore,

the subsequent proposed reservation in the revision of the D.P. would

not come in the way of the development by the Petitioner of the subject

land.

4.       Per contra, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation would

submit that it is specifically pleaded in the affidavit-in-reply of

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that the purchase notice was not received by

the Commissioner nor by the Town Planning Department. He submits

that as the service of purchase notice itself is disputed, resultantly the

period of 24 months did not commence, and there is no lapsing of

reservation.

5.       In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Petitioner would point out

page 49 of the Petition, which is a document annexed by the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 themselves, which is the inward register of

Ichalkaranji Nagar Parishad reflecting inward no. 4702 in respect of the

purchase notice issued by the Petitioner. He would submit that in view

2    2003 (3) Mh.L.J 820


Arya Chavan                       3 of 7
                                                                  908-WP-11370-2025.doc


of Respondent’s inward register, there is no question of any dispute

about receipt of the purchase notice.

6.      We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7.      In so far as the reservation in the sanctioned D.P., which was

initially in the year 1981, and the revised D.P. of Ichalkaranji City,

sanctioned on 24th May, 2012, in which the Petitioner's land was

reserved for the purpose of high school and playground, is not in

dispute. The only issue required to be considered is whether there is

lapsing of reservation.

8.      Section 127 of the MRTP Act reads as under :

      “127. Lapsing of reservations.

      - [(1)] [Re-numbered by Maharashtra 16 of 2009 Section 2.] If any land
      reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan
      under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the
      date on which a final Regional plan, or final Development plan comes into
      force [or, if a declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of section 126 is not
      published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner or any
      person interested in the land may serve notice, alongwith the documents
      showing his title or interest in the said land, on the Planning Authority,
      the Development Authority or, as the case may be, the Appropriate
      Authority to that effect; and if within twelve months] [This portion
      substituted by Maharashtra 16 of 2009, Section 2 (a).] from the date of
      the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as
      aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or
      designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall
      be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or
      designation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of
      development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under
      the relevant plan.
      (2)[ On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any land under
      sub-section (1), the Government shall notify the same, by an order
      published in the Official Gazette.] [Sub-section (2) is added by
      Maharashtra 16 of 2009, Section 2(b).]”




Arya Chavan                             4 of 7
                                                       908-WP-11370-2025.doc


9.      The statutory provisions make it clear that if any land reserved in

any plan under the enactment, is not acquired within a period of 10

years from the date on which the final Regional Plan or final

Development Plan comes into force, then in such case, in event if

purchase notice is served by the owner or any person interested in the

land, and if within a period of 24 months, the land is not acquired or no

steps of acquisition are commenced, the resolution is deemed to have

been lapsed. In the present case, the period of 10 years undisputedly

expired on 10th July, 2022.

10.     The purchase notice is served on 5 th June, 2023 calling upon the

Respondents to acquire land within a period of two years. Though, a

dispute is sought to be raised that the notice was not received by the

Commissioner nor by the Town Planning Department, paragraph 4 of

the affidavit-in-reply of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admits that the notice

was inwarded in the Baranishi (Inward) Section of the Corporation under

inward no. 4702. In view of the Respondent’s own pleading in the

affidavit, it is evident that the purchase notice was duly served upon the

Corporation, and whether it is received by the Commissioner or not is an

internal issue of the Corporation. The Respondent-Corporation cannot

deny the receipt of the purchase notice and period of two years would

commence from 5th June, 2023. Admittedly, the period of 24 months has

lapsed without any steps of acquisition being taken of the reserved


Arya Chavan                       5 of 7
                                                                 908-WP-11370-2025.doc


land. The reservation to the Petitioner's land is deemed to have lapsed,

and the land has now become available for the purpose of development,

as permissible in case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.

11.     Learned counsel for the Petitioner is also right in contending that

once a reservation is deemed to have been lapsed, because of the land

not being acquired for the purpose within the statutory period, then the

right which accrues to the owner cannot be taken away by putting the

land again under reservation in the revised D.P.

12.     In light of the settled position in law, the proposed reservation of

playground and proposed 24 feet wide D.P. road by virtue of notification

under Section 26 of the MRTP Act will not affect the lapsed reservation

and the right which has accrued to the Petitioner to utilize the land for

development as permissible.

13.     In light of the above, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

clauses (b)(i)(ii) which reads as under :

      b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order
      or direction in the like nature of Article-226 of the Constitution of India;

      (i) to hold and/or declare that reservation in respect of Petitioners' land
      bearing Revision Survey No. 689/A/3 admeasuring about 2000 sq. mtrs.
      situated at Ichalkaranji Dist. Kolhapur reserved being Reservation Site No.
      I/10 for "High School and Play Ground" in sanctioned Development Plan
      (Revised) of Ichalkaranji City, has lapsed under the provisions of Section-
      127 of the said M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 and that the said land is available to the
      Petitioners / Owners for the purpose of development or otherwise,
      permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant Development
      Plan.

      (ii) The Respondent No. 3 State of Maharashtra the Urban Development
      Department be kindly directed to issue necessary Notification forthwith
      as required u/s. 127(2) of MRTP Act, 1966 that the reservation, allocation,


Arya Chavan                             6 of 7
                                                               908-WP-11370-2025.doc


      designation bearing Reservation Site no. I/10 for the purpose of "High
      School and Playground" on the Petitioners land bearing Survey No.
      689/A/3 of which City Survey No. 9718 at Ichalkaranji Dist. Kolhapur
      within Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation admeasuring about 2000 sq.
      mtrs. in sanctioned D. P. of Ichalkaranji City (revised) has deemed to have
      lapsed and available to the Petitioners for development as permissible
      under the law.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                          [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Arya Chavan                            7 of 7