ANURADHA RADESHAM SARDAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THOU THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

                                                               32-WP-13906-2022.doc



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

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 13906 OF 2022

Anuradha Radesham Sarda                               ...Petitioner
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others.                  ...Respondents

                                ——————
Mr. Suhas S. Deokar with Mr. A. S. Jambilkar & Ms. Prajkta Kamble, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP, for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale, with Mr. Mohsin Khan & Mr. Viraj Dhumal i/b. Mr. Dilip
Bodake, for the Respondent No2.
                                ——————
                                  Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                              Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                  Date      : October 06, 2026.
P. C. :

1.        By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that

the reservation on the Petitioner's land bearing old Survey No. 125/B,

renumbered New Survey No. 123/1/5 has lapsed as per Section 127 of

the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short,

"MRTP Act"), and the land be released from the said reservation and be

available for the purpose of development, which is permissible in the

case of adjacent land under the plan.

2.        The facts relevant for the purpose of considering the relief are

that under the Development Plan of Solapur 1997–2017, the


Gaikwad RD                         1 of 5
                                                           32-WP-13906-2022.doc



Petitioner's land admeasuring 4,000 Sq. Mtrs. out of 3 H. 90 R was

reserved for City Bus Terminus and Shopping Centre under Reservation

No.13/06. As no steps were taken for acquisition of the said land within

the statutory period of 10 years, a purchase notice was served on 5 th

May 2018 on the Planning Authority, which was responded to on 11 th

May 2018 seeking further documents. As the land was not acquired

within 24 months from the date of the purchase notice, the present

petition came to be iled.

3.      Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would point out the

notiication by which the Development Plan came to be approved on

28th October 2004. He would further submit that though the purchase

notice was served on 5th May 2018, no steps were taken for acquisition

by the Solapur Municipal Corporation. He would further point out that

by a communication dated 14th November 2025 addressed to the Urban

Development Department, the Corporation has itself stated that the

reservation has lapsed and an appropriate order in that regard will be

issued by the Urban Development Department. He submits that though

the communication was addressed by the Corporation on 14 th November

2025, no decision has been taken.

4.      Learned AGP, on instructions, would seek time for the State

Government to take a decision on the communication dated 14th

November 2025.


Gaikwad RD                       2 of 5
                                                            32-WP-13906-2022.doc



5.      Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-

Municipal Corporation would submit that the Petitioner did not serve

the complete notice and, therefore, is required to serve a fresh notice,

which has not been done. He would, however, fairly concede that the

communication dated 14th November 2025 has been addressed to the

State Government for an order of lapsing of the reservation.

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

7.      In view of the statutory provisions of the MRTP Act, it is not

necessary for this Court to await a decision to be taken by the State

Government on the issue of lapsing of reservation. If the provisions of

Section 127 of the MRTP Act are satisied, the Petitioner is entitled to

the relief sought in the petition, irrespective of whether the State

Government takes a decision on the communication or not.           For that

purpose, if the facts are noted, the Petitioner's land bearing Old Survey

No.125/B (New Survey No. 123/1/5) admeasuring 4,000 Sq. Mtrs. out of

3 H. 90 R., came to be reserved under the Development Plan, which was

notiied on 15th December 2004.

8.      The provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act provides that if any

land reserved for any purpose is not acquired within a period of ten

years from the date on which the inal Development Plan comes into

force, the owner or any person interested in the land is entitled to serve




Gaikwad RD                        3 of 5
                                                            32-WP-13906-2022.doc



upon the Appropriate Authority a purchase notice; and if, within a

period of 24 months from the date of service of such notice, the land is

not acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisition, the

reservation is deemed to have lapsed. The period of ten years expired

in the year 2014 and on 5 th May 2018, the Petitioner served upon the

Commissioner of the Solapur Municipal Corporation the purchase notice

under Section 127 of the MRTP Act alongwith land ownership

documents such as the 7/12 extract and the plan. In response thereto,

by communication dated 11th May 2018, the Corporation called upon the

Petitioner to submit the layout copy, measurement plan, etc.

9.      Mr. Deokar, would submit that under the provisions of Section 127

of the MRTP Act, alongwith the purchase notice, it is only the

documents showing title or interest in the land are required to be

annexed and which had been duly annexed.             We ind from the

communication      dated   14th   November   2025   addressed      by     the

Corporation to the Urban Development Department that, in accordance

with the requisition of the Corporation, all documents were served by

the Petitioner, who had also informed the Corporation that the

Petitioner is not interested in FSI or TDR.             Pertinently, the

communication of the Corporation itself admits the position that

reservation has lapsed and seeks an order from the Urban Development

Department under Section 127(2) as regards the notiication. It is,


Gaikwad RD                        4 of 5
                                                                                      32-WP-13906-2022.doc



                        therefore, now not open for the Corporation to adopt a diferent stand

                        as regards the lapsing of the reservation.

                        10.     As the ingredients of Section 127 of the MRTP Act are satisied

                        and it is not demonstrated that any steps have been taken for

                        acquisition of the land reserved in the inal Development Plan, the

                        Petitioner is entitled to the declaration of lapsing of reservation.

                        11.     Accordingly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a)

                        and (b).

                        12.     The State Government is directed to notify the lapsing of

                        reservation by an order published in the Oicial Gazette expeditiously,

                        and in any event within a period of four weeks from today.



                         [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                       [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.10.06
           20:35:03
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                        5 of 5