Bombay High Court
YAKUB SALBHAI CONTRACTOR SINCE DECEASED THROU. LEGAL HEIRS AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ITS URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The reservation of the land has lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the land is released from reservation.
Summary
The petitioners, heirs of Yakub Contractor, claimed ownership of a 88.29‑acre parcel in Lonavala that had been reserved for "housing for the dishoused" under the 1978 Development Plan and its later revisions. They served purchase notices under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on 2 August 2021 after the planning authority failed to acquire the land for more than ten years. The respondents (State, Director of Town Planning and Lonavala Municipal Council) argued that the notices were defective for lacking title documents and a detailed description. The Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 125‑127, the requirement of a purchase notice, and the jurisprudence of Girnar Traders and related cases, concluding that the notice was sufficient and the authority’s inaction triggered the lapse of reservation. Consequently, the Court declared the reservation lapsed, ordered the State to issue a gazette notification, and allowed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the reservation of the land under the Development Plan has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a declaration of lapse despite alleged deficiencies in the purchase notice.
- Whether the planning authority can rely on the alleged defectiveness of the notice as a defence.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 125, 126, 127
Subjects
- MRTP Act
- Section 127
- Reservation lapse
- Land acquisition
- Development plan
- Purchase notice
- Planning authority
- Writ petition
- Property law
Judgment
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13965 OF 2024
1. Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased)
2. Zehra Yakub Contractor (Deceased)
Both through their legal heirs
2.1. Mazahir Alias Al Azhar Yakub
Contractor Age: 67 years,
Occupation: Business
2.2. Habib Yakub Contractor
Age: 51 years, Occupation: Business
2.3. Nasreen Yakub Contractor
Age-57 years, Occupation-Business
All 3 having registered address
at Sr. No. 20, Plot No. 15, Soeb Villa,
D. T. Sahani Road,
Lonavala, District-Pune, 410401
2.4. Duriya Shabbir Presswala
Age-65 years, Occupation - Business,
having Registered Address-11/1101,
Hill View Apartment, Belvedre
Hill Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010.
3. Mazahir Alias Al Azhar Yakub Contractor
Kartikeya 1 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
Age: 67 years, Occupation: Business
4. Hasina Al Azhar Yakub Contractor
Age: 65, Occupation: Housewife
Both having Registered Address - Sr. No. 20,
Plot No. 15, Soeb Villa, D. T. Sahani Road,
Lonavala, District - Pune 410401 ….Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. Director of Town Planning,
State of Maharashtra Office
at the Commissioner of Pune, Pune
3. Lonavala Municipal Council,
Through its Chief Officer,
Lonavala Tal Maval, District: Pune ….Respondents
----
➢ Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w Mr. Irfan Unwala i/b. Ms.
Shaheen S. Kapadia, Advocate for the Petitioners.
➢ Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, a/w Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP,
for the Respondent-State.
➢ Ms. Shakuntala Wadekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
----
Kartikeya 2 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 9th FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026
Judgment :- (Per :- 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
Kartikeya 3 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
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.
Kartikeya 4 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
(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 revised and
sanctioned on 29th June, 2005. The partially revised DP Plan came
into force on 27th August 2005.
(f) Again, on 18th August, 2006, Respondent No. 3
sanctioned and published the remaining part of the DP Plan. The
Kartikeya 5 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
said DP Plan came into force on 1st November, 2006.
(g) Until 31st October, 2016, i.e. over a period of 10 years,
Respondent No. 3 had neither proceeded with the acquisition of the
land nor carried out any development of the land for the purpose for
which it was reserved.
(h) Since no land was acquired, on 2nd August, 2021, the
Petitioners issued a second purchase notice under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act to Respondent No. 3-Council.
(i) Despite receipt of the said notice, Respondent No. 3 failed
to comply with the notice, neither acquired nor developed the said
land pursuant thereto until 1st August, 2023.
(j) It is evident from the record that Respondent No. 3-
Council, i.e. the planning authority, did not take any steps to acquire
or develop the land since 1978. Consequently, the Petitioners filed
this Writ Petition on 23rd September, 2024.
Kartikeya 6 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
6. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and upon
examining the record, including the affidavit-in-reply filed by
Respondent No. 3 and the judgments relied upon by the Petitioners,
it appears that the controversy between the Petitioners and the
Council falls in a narrow compass, i.e. the Petitioners have issued a
purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which deals
with lapsing of reservations of the land. Thus, we would like to
reproduce the relevant provision of the MRTP Act.
7. For context, Chapter VII of the MRTP Act deals with
“Land Acquisition”. Section 125 provides for the “compulsory
acquisition of land needed for the purposes of the Regional Plan,
Development Plan, or Town Planning Scheme”. Section 126 deals
with the “acquisition of land required for public purposes specified
in such plans”. Section 127, however, deals with the “lapsing of
reservations” and prescribes the procedure for issuance of a
purchase notice in that regard. Since Section 127 is relevant for
deciding the issue that arises in the present Writ Petition, the same is
reproduced hereunder:
Kartikeya 7 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
“127. Lapsing of reservations
(1) 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, along with 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 twenty-four months 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.”
8. A plain reading of Section 127 of the MRTP Act indicates
that after expiry of ten years from the date of reservation, when no
steps have been taken to acquire the land, the owner or interested
person gets the right to issue a purchase notice under Section 127 of
the MRTP Act. The reservation cannot lapse automatically after ten
years if a purchase notice is not issued. The reservation lapses only
if, after service of such notice, the Planning Authority fails to take
steps towards acquisition of the land within the twenty-four months
prescribed under the statute. Thus, the right contemplated under
Kartikeya 8 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
Section 127 arises upon issuance of the purchase notice after ten
years and not merely by efflux of time.
9. The learned Advocate for the Council has only raised the
grievance that the Petitioners did not submit the documents as
required under Section 127 of the MRTP Act; in particular, the
purchase notice issued by the Petitioners was allegedly incomplete,
as no documents were furnished to substantiate their title to the land.
10. Secondly, it is contended that the notice did not contain a
detailed description of the property, nor did it enclose the
measurement sheet of the land in question to indicate the extent of
the land affected by the DP reservation. In view of the above, it is
argued that the Petitioners are not entitled to relief under Section
127 of the MRTP Act, and, therefore, it is urged that the Writ
Petition be dismissed.
11. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners
submits that, since 1978, the Petitioners’ land has been shown in the
DP Plan as reserved for “ Housing for dishoused”, i.e., ‘homes for
Kartikeya 9 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
homeless people’. The State/planning authorities neither acquired
the land nor took any steps despite receipt of the purchase notice.
Therefore, in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation
is deemed to have lapsed. It is further canvassed that the planning
authority cannot raise a grievance that the Purchase Notice was
defective, on the ground that the title documents did not accompany
it or that it did not provide a detailed description of the property,
when it failed to take steps to acquire the property within the
prescribed period, as contemplated by the MRTP Act. Moreover, the
omission of details regarding the second revised DP Plan does not
affect the Petitioners’ claim, as Respondent No. 3 does not dispute
the publication of the second revised sanctioned DP Plan, under
which a portion of Survey No. 55 was reserved. On these grounds,
the Petitioners contend that they are entitled to the reliefs as prayed
for.
12. To buttress these submissions, the learned Advocate for
the Petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Jayantilal Himmatlal Oswal V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Writ
Petition No.205 of 2021), Decision dated 09.04.2021
Kartikeya 10 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
(ii) Shripad @ Pramod N. Bhonde & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors., (Writ Petition No.12309 of 2022), Decision dated 02.03.2023;
(iii) Salim Abdul Subhan Sahikh V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Writ
Petition No.4515 of 2022);
(iv) Dr. Dattatray Baburao Kungulwar & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra
& Anr. (Writ Petition No.6562 of 2024); and
(v) Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar & Anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors. (Writ Petition No.15701 of 2022)
13. In view of the afore-cited judgments, he propounded that
these decisions fully cover the issue in the case at hand, and as such,
urges that the Petition be allowed.
14. Before dealing with the rival submissions, it would be
appropriate to set out the undisputed facts of the case as follows.
(a) In 1978, Respondent No. 3- Council prepared and
published the Development Plan, which was sanctioned by
Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of establishing “Housing for
dishoused,” and came into force on 1st March 1978. It is not in
dispute that the DP Plan was subsequently revised on 29 th June 2005
and on 18th August 2006, with the revised plans coming into force
on 27th August 2005 and 1st November 2006, respectively.
Kartikeya 11 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
(b) It is not in dispute that a certain portion of ‘ the land’ is
reserved under the 1978 DP Plan, and the revised DP Plan of 2005–
06. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.3, the planning
authority, does not dispute the receipt of the purchase notice under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which was served by the Petitioner
on it on 2nd August 2021, i.e., after the lapse of ten years from the
sanction and publication of the second revised DP Plan.
15. In Jayantilal Himmatlal Oswal (supra), the Petitioners therein
had sought a similar relief in respect of the same DP plans as
claimed in the case at hand, wherein this Court examined the DP
Plan of 1978 as well as the revised DP Plan of 2005 and observed
that, “over a period of 40 years (from 1978 to 2018), Respondent
No. 3-Council failed to acquire the land that had been reserved
under the said DP plans. Therefore, upon consideration of the
purchase notice, the Court held that Respondent No. 3 did not take
any steps to acquire or develop the land within two years from the
receipt of the notice, resulting in the lapse of the reservation.”
Kartikeya 12 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
16. In the present case, Respondent No. 3 does not dispute the
receipt of the purchase notice dated 2nd August 2021, and two years
have elapsed on 1st August 2023. Respondent No. 3 has failed to
take any steps to acquire or develop the land within the prescribed
period; as such, the observations made in the afore-cited decision
are squarely applicable to the case at hand.
17. The planning authority, Respondent No. 3, has only raised
the grievance that a purchase notice was defective in the absence of
documents demonstrating title or interest in the land or the notice
did not contain a detailed description of the property, nor did it
produce the measurement sheet of the land in question to indicate
the extent of the land affected by the DP reservation. According to
us, the submission of documents showing title or interest in the land,
along with the Purchase Notice to the concerned Authority as per
section 127(1), is intended to facilitate clear transfer of title from the
owner or the person interested in the land upon payment of the
consideration to the claimant within the stipulated period of 24
months.
Kartikeya 13 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
18. In our view, after the expiry of the stipulated period of
twenty-four months under Section 127 (1) upon service of a
purchase notice, if the land is not acquired, or no steps as
contemplated under the said Section are commenced for its
acquisition, thereupon, the land is deemed to be released from such
reservation, allotment or designation; in such circumstances, the
concerned Authority cannot raise a defence that the purchase notice
was defective, as it was not accompanied by the documents showing
title or interest in the said land.
19. In other words, the concerned Authority cannot raise a
defence of a defective purchase notice for want of a document
showing title or interest in the said land, when it has failed to take
steps to acquire the land within the stipulated period as
contemplated by the provisions of the MRTP Act. Such documents
are not required for the release of the property from reservation,
allotment, or designation, when the land is not acquired, or no steps
are commenced for its acquisition, reservation, or allotment, as
provided in the MRTP Act, on account of the lapsing of the
reservation.
Kartikeya 14 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
20. Besides, upon perusal of the purchase notice under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act, it is evident from Paragraphs 2 and 5
of the notice that the Petitioners have categorically provided a
detailed description of the land in question. Furthermore, the
Petitioners have referred to the 1978 DP reservation plan. Apart
from the above, it is to be noted that the Respondent No. 3 –
Council by communication dated 25.11.2021 (page 100) admitted
the receipt of the Purchase Notice dated 02.08.2021 on the same
date. By the said communication, the Respondent No. 3- Council
informed the Petitioners regarding the implementation of the revised
DP plan of 2005-2006 and asked them to produce the documents
accordingly. The said facts themselves indicate that the Respondent
No. 3 does not dispute the receipt of notice even after ten years of
implementation of the revised DP plan of 2005-06. Consequently,
we find no merit in the objection/grievance raised by the learned
Advocate for Respondent No.3, who contended that the Petitioners
failed to provide the details of the land, or that the Purchase Notice
did not disclose for which reservation number the Petitioners had
issued the Purchase Notice.
Kartikeya 15 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
21. Thus, it emerges that Respondent No. 3, having failed to
take any steps to acquire the property within the period prescribed
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the documents as sought by it
are not required for the release of the land from reservation,
allotment, or designation.
22. In terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the owner or
person interested in the land is entitled to claim that the reservation
shall be deemed to have lapsed where the Authority has failed to
initiate action to acquire the land within the prescribed period. It is
also to be noted that the Petitioners have produced a photostat copy
of the registered Sale Deed dated 4th March, 1991 (page Nos. 26 to
57), which clearly demonstrates that, by virtue of the said Sale
Deed, they acquired title and interest in the land in question.
23. It is pertinent to note that in Nirmiti Developers through its
Partners & Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
438, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after dealing with Sections 49,
126, and 127 of the MRTP Act, considering the mandate in Girnar
Traders V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555 in
Kartikeya 16 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
Paragraphs 28 to 32, and the position of law in various judgments of
the Hon’ble Apex Court, has laid down the principles underlying
Section 127 of the MRTP Act in para 34, 47 and 50. We would like
to reproduce para 28 to 32 and 34, 47 and 50 as under :
“28. In Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC
555, a three-Judge Bench, by a majority judgment delivered by
Naolekar, J., framed the question before the Court thus:
“19. The question that requires consideration and answer in
the present case is: Whether the reservation has lapsed due
to the failure of the planning authority to take steps within
the period of six months from the date of service of the
notice of purchase as stipulated by Section 127 of the
MRTP Act; and also the question as regards applicability of
new Section 11-A of the LA Act to the acquisition of land
under the MRTP Act.”
29. After setting out Sections 126 and 127 respectively,
this Court then laid down the scheme of Section 126, which
makes it clear that the Section 6 notification under the Land
Acquisition Act is to be issued, in cases where acquisition is
made under Section 126(1)(c), in pursuance of an application by
an appropriate authority to the State Government within one year
from the publication of the plan in question, or by way of the
State Government making a fresh declaration beyond a period of
one year under Section 126(4). This is stated by the Court in para
28 as follows : (Girnar case SCC para 28)
“28. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 provides for one year's
limitation for the publication of the declaration from the
date of publication of the draft plan or scheme. Sub-section
(4), however, empowers the State Government to make a
fresh declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act even if the
prescribed period of one year has expired. This declaration
is to be issued by the State Government for the acquisition
of the land without there being any application moved by
the planning/local authority under clause (c) of Section
126(1).”
Kartikeya 17 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
30. Insofar as Section 127 is concerned, the Court went on
to hold : (Girnar case, paras 31-32)
“31. Section 127 prescribes two time periods. First, a period
of 10 years within which the acquisition of the land
reserved, allotted or designated has to be completed by
agreement from the date on which a regional plan or
development plan comes into force, or the proceedings for
acquisition of such land under the MRTP Act or under the
LA Act are commenced. Secondly, if the first part of Section
127 is not complied with or no steps are taken, then the
second part of Section 127 will come into operation, under
which a period of six months is provided from the date on
which the notice has been served by the owner within which
the land has to be acquired or the steps as aforesaid are to be
commenced for its acquisition. The six-month period shall
commence from the date the owner or any person interested
in the land serves a notice on the planning authority,
development authority or appropriate authority expressing
his intent claiming dereservation of the land. If neither of
the things is done, the reservation shall lapse. If there is no
notice by the owner or any person interested, there is no
question of lapsing reservation, allotment or designation of
the land under the development plan. The second part of
Section 127 stipulates that the reservation of the land under
a development scheme shall lapse if the land is not acquired
or no steps are taken for the acquisition of the land within
the period of six months from the date of service of the
purchase notice. The word “aforesaid” in the collocation of
the words “no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its
acquisition” obviously refers to the steps contemplated by
Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
32. If no proceedings as provided under Section 127 are
taken and as a result thereof the reservation of the land
lapses, the land shall be released from reservation, allotment
or designation and shall be available to the owner for the
purpose of development. The availability of the land to the
owner for the development would only be for the purpose
which is permissible in the case of adjacent land under the
relevant plan. Thus, even after the release, the owner cannot
utilise the land in whatever manner he deems fit and proper,
but its utilisation has to be in conformity with the relevant
plan for which the adjacent lands are permitted to be
utilised.”
Kartikeya 18 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
31. The Court then went on to consider Municipal Corpn.
of Greater Bombay v. Dr Hakimwadi Tenants' Assn., 1988 Supp
SCC 55, and was of the opinion that the observations on the
expression “no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its
acquisition” stipulated under Section 127 were obiter in nature.
The majority then went on to state the law under Section 127 as
follows : (Girnar case paras 54-57)
“54. When we conjointly read Sections 126 and 127 of the
MRTP Act, it is apparent that the legislative intent is to
expeditiously acquire the land reserved under the Town
Planning Scheme and, therefore, various periods have been
prescribed for the acquisition of the owner's property. The
intent and purpose of the provisions of Sections 126 and 127
have been well explained in Municipal Corpn. of Greater
Bombay case [Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Dr
Hakimwadi Tenants' Assn., 1988 Supp SCC 55]. If the
acquisition is left for time immemorial in the hands of the
authority concerned by simply making an application to the
State Government for acquiring such land under the LA Act,
1894, then the authority will simply move such an
application and if no such notification is issued by the State
Government for one year of the publication of the draft
regional plan under Section 126(2) read with Section 6 of the
LA Act, wait for the notification to be issued by the State
Government by exercising suo motu power under sub-
section (4) of Section 126; and till then no declaration could
be made under Section 127 as regards lapsing of reservation
and contemplated declaration of land being released and
available for the landowner for his utilisation as permitted
under Section 127. Section 127 permitted inaction on the
part of the acquisition authorities for a period of 10 years for
the dereservation of the land. Not only that, it gives a further
time for either to acquire the land or to take steps for the
acquisition of the land within a period of six months from
the date of service of notice by the landowner for
dereservation. The steps towards commencement of the
acquisition in such a situation would necessarily be the steps
for acquisition and not a step which may not result in
acquisition and merely for the purpose of seeking time so
that Section 127 does not come into operation.
55. Providing the period of six months after the service of
notice clearly indicates the intention of the legislature of an
Kartikeya 19 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
urgency where nothing has been done in regard to the land
reserved under the plan for a period of 10 years, and the
owner is deprived of the utilisation of his land as per the user
permissible under the plan. When a mandate is given in a
section requiring compliance within a particular period, strict
compliance is required therewith, as the introduction of this
section is with legislative intent to balance the power of the
State of “eminent domain”. The State possessed the power to
take or control the property of the owner for the benefit of a
public cause, but when the State so acted, it was obliged to
compensate the injured upon making just compensation.
Compensation provided to the owner is the release of the
land for keeping the land under reservation for 10 years
without taking any steps for the acquisition of the same.
56. The underlying principle It is, thus, clear that the
scheme of Sections 126 and 127 respectively would leave
nobody in doubt, for the reason that if a period of 10 years
has elapsed from the date of publication of the plan in
question, and envisaged in Section 127 of the MRTP Act is
either to utilise the land for the purpose it is reserved in the
plan in a given time or let the owner utilise the land for the
purpose it is permissible under the town planning scheme.
The steps taken under the section within the time stipulated
should be towards the acquisition of land. It is a step of
acquisition of land and not a step for the acquisition of land.
It is trite that failure of authorities to take steps which result
in actual commencement of acquisition of land cannot be
permitted to defeat the purpose and object of the scheme of
acquisition under the MRTP Act by merely moving an
application requesting the Government to acquire the land,
which the Government may or may not accept. Any step
which may or may not culminate in the step for acquisition
cannot be said to be a step towards acquisition.
57. It may also be noted that the legislature, while enacting
Section 127, has deliberately used the word “steps” (in plural
and not in singular), which are required to be taken for the
acquisition of the land. On the construction of Section 126,
which provides for the acquisition of land under the MRTP
Act, it is apparent that the steps for the acquisition of the
land would be the issuance of the declaration under Section
6 of the LA Act. Clause (c) of Section 126(1) merely
provides for a mode by which the State Government can be
requested for the acquisition of the land under Section 6 of
the LA Act. The making of an application to the State
Kartikeya 20 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
Government for the acquisition of the land would not be a
step for the acquisition of the land under reservation. Sub-
section (2) of Section 126 leaves it open to the State
Government either to permit the acquisition or not to permit,
considering the public purpose for which the acquisition is
sought by the authorities. Thus, the steps towards acquisition
would really commence when the State Government permits
the acquisition and, as a result thereof, publishes the
declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act.”
32. The scheme of Sections 126(2) and (4) was again reiterated in
para 61 as follows : (Girnar case para 61)
“61. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 prohibits
publication of the declaration after the expiry of one year
from the date of publication of the draft regional plan,
development plan or any other plan or scheme. Thus, from
the date of publication of the draft regional plan, within one
year, an application has to be moved under clause (c) of
Section 126(1), which should culminate in a declaration
under Section 6 of the LA Act. As per the proviso to sub-
section (2) of Section 126, the maximum period permitted
between the publication of a draft regional plan and
declaration by the Government in the Official Gazette under
Section 126(2) is one year. In other words, during one year of
the publication of the draft regional plan, two steps need to
be completed, namely, (i) application by the appropriate
authority to the State Government under Section 126(1)(c);
and (ii) declaration by the State Government on receipt of the
application mentioned in clause (c) of Section 126(1) on
satisfaction of the conditions specified under Section 126(2).
The only exception to this provision has been given under
Section 126(4).”
24. Considering the law laid down in Girnar Traders (supra)
and other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Paragraphs 34, 47 and 50 concludes as follows :
Kartikeya 21 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
“34. It is, thus, clear that the scheme of Sections 126 and 127
respectively would leave nobody in doubt, for the reason that if a
period of 10 years has elapsed from the date of publication of the
plan in question, and no steps for acquiring the land have been
taken, then once a purchase notice is served under Section 127, steps
to acquire the land must follow within a period of one year (now two
years as amended) from the date of service of such notice, or else
the land acquisition proceedings would lapse.”
“47. Thus, the principles underlying Section 127 of the MRTP Act
are either to utilise the land for the purpose for which it is reserved
in the timeline given or to let the owner utilise the land for the
purpose as permissible under the town planning scheme. The
reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed if no steps are taken for the
acquisition of the said land within the prescribed period. Indisputably, in
the present case, the respondents have not taken any steps to issue a
notification after receipt of the notice.”
“50. The landowner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for
years together. Once an embargo has been put on a landowner not to
use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be
kept open-ended for indefinite period. The statute has provided a
period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the Act.
Additional one year (now 2 years as amended) is granted to the
landowner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment
by Maharashtra Act 42 of 2015. Such timeline is sacrosanct and has
to be adhered to by the State or by the authorities under the State.
25. We have also perused the judgments relied upon by the
petitioners. It is a trite law that, pursuant to a notice under Section
127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation would lapse upon failure to
take effective steps to acquire the land, as the acquisition would not
be revived merely by passing a resolution. In the absence of the
steps taken by the Planning Authority, the rights accrued in favour
Kartikeya 22 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
of the owners or persons interested in the land entitle them to issue a
purchase notice for the release of their land.
26. To summarise, it is evident that despite the receipt of the
purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, Respondent
No. 3-Council failed to comply with the notice and did not take the
necessary steps to acquire the land within the prescribed period of
twenty-four months. As a consequence, as per the mandate in
Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation shall be deemed to
have lapsed by operation of law, and the land shall be deemed to be
released from such reservation. Accordingly, the Petitioners are
entitled to the relief as sought.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to
the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and the mandate in
the judgments in Nirmiti, Girnar (supra) and other relied decisions,
we are of the opinion that, despite service of the purchase notice,
Respondent No. 3 has failed to comply with it in accordance with
Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act. Consequently, the
Kartikeya 23 of 24
11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt
Petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the reservation on the
land has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
28. As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (b) and (c), as reproduced above, with the following
directions :
(a) Respondent No.3-Counsel shall issue a communication to
Respondent No.1-State within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of
this order.
(b) The State Government shall issue a notification under
Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act within 60 days thereafter.
29. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Kartikeya 24 of 24
Checking your session…