Bombay High Court
DEVI CONSTRUCTION LLPversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Clause (e) of Section 49(1) is an independent contingency and a purchase notice served under it need not be accompanied by an application under Section 49(2).
Summary
The petitioners, owners of a 2.10‑hectare plot in Vadgaon, challenged the rejection of their purchase notice filed under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Draft Development Plan had reserved part of the land for a garden, prompting the petitioners to serve a purchase notice invoking clauses (1)(a) and (1)(e) of Section 49. The Director of Town Planning rejected the notice on the ground that it was not accompanied by an application to the planning authority as required by Section 49(2). The Court examined the statutory language and prior judgments, notably Aone Land Developers and Gopal Lad, concluding that clause (e) is an independent contingency and does not require an accompanying application. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 9 September 2024 and directed the respondent to decide the purchase notice on its merits without demanding a Section 49(2) application. The petition was allowed and the respondent was given six weeks to rule on the notice.
Issues considered
- The purchase notice under Section 49(1)(a) and (1)(e) must be accompanied by a copy of an application to the planning authority as mandated by Section 49(2)
- Whether clause (e) of Section 49(1) operates independently of the requirement of Section 49(2)
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 49(1)(a), 49(1)(e), 49(2)
Subjects
- Section 49
- purchase notice
- land acquisition
- planning authority
- reservation
- property rights
- Article 300-A
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- quashing order
Judgment
WP-16064-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16064 OF 2024
MANSI
DHANANJAY
SHELKE Devi Construction LLP .. Petitioner
Digitally signed by
MANSI DHANANJAY
SHELKE
Date: 2026.09.23
Versus
14:08:59 +0530
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Adv. Dormaan Dalal a/w Adv. Shirley Mody for the Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita Solunke, Adl. GP a/w Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for
Respondent/State.
CORAM: R.I CHAGLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of
parties.
2. This Writ Petition seeks quashing and setting aside of the Order dated
9th September, 2024 passed by Respondent No.3, Director of Town Planning,
and after quashing and setting aside the same confirming and accepting the
Petitioner’s Purchase Notice dated 15th March, 2024.
Page 1 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
FACTS
3. The subject matter of this Petition is a property bearing Bhumapan No.
107/B of Village Vadgaon, admeasuring 2.10 Hectares (21000 sq. mtrs)
(hereinafter referred to as “the said property”) owned by the Petitioner.
4. On 28th February, 2024, Respondent No.4, the Vadgaon Nagar
Panchayat, who is the Planning Authority under the Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the MRTP Act”)
published a Draft Development Plan under Section 26 of the MRTP Act. As
per the Draft Development Plan, a portion of the said property admeasuring
12,290 sq. mtrs. was reserved by the Planning Authority for a Garden, being
Reservation No. 40 ‘Garden’.
5. The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 12th March, 2024 to Respondent
No.5, the Chief Officer of Respondent No.4, objecting to the Garden
Reservation.
6. A Purchase Notice dated 15th March, 2024 was issued by the Petitioner
under Section 49 of the MRTP Act, and more particularly also under Section
49(1)(a) and Section 49 (1)(e). This Purchase Notice was addressed to
Respondent No.2, being the Principal Secretary of Urban Development
Department. Under Section 151 of the MRTP Act, the State Government has
delegated its powers to pass Orders under Section 49(4) of the MRTP Act to
Page 2 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
Respondent No.3 Director of Town Planning, vide Notification dated 1 st
December, 2016.
7. By an Order dated 9th September, 2024, Respondent No.3 rejected the
Purchase Notice of the Petitioner. This Order dated 9 th September, 2024 is
impugned in the present Petition.
8. On 16th October, 2024, the present Petition was filed.
9. An Affidavit-in-Reply dated 5th November, 2025 was filed by one
Abhijit Ketkar, Assistant Director of Town Planning, on behalf of Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3. Although, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been served in the
matter, they have chosen not to appear in the matter.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
10. Mr. Dormaan Dalal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, submitted that Respondent No.3 had, by the impugned Order
dated 9th September, 2024, rejected the request of the Petitioner under
Section 49 of the MRTP Act on the purported ground that sub-section (2) of
Section 49 contemplates that the Purchase Notice under Section 49 (1) has to
be accompanied by a copy of an application made by the Applicant to the
Planning Authority and an Order or decision of the Authority and of the State
Government, if any. Mr. Dalal submitted that Respondent No.3 has
completely misread Section 49 (1) & (2) of the MRTP Act. Mr. Dalal
Page 3 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
submitted that a copy of an application made to the Planning Authority is to
be accompanied along with a Purchase Notice only when the Applicant makes
an application under Section 49 (1)(d) which contemplates refusal of
permission for development of land or permission subject to conditions. Mr.
Dalal submitted that, in the present case, the Petitioner has made the
application under Section 49(1)(a) and (e). In fact, the Petitioner had
specifically stated in the Purchase Notice that it is unable to sell the said
property except at a lower price, which squarely falls under Section 49 (1)(e),
and had raised an objection to the reservation vide letter dated 12 th March,
2024. Mr. Dalal submitted that, in such cases, the law does not contemplate
making any separate application to the Planning Authority in addition to the
Purchase Notice.
11. Mr. Dalal submitted that Respondent No.3 had failed to appreciate the
contention of the Petitioner that Section 49(1)(a),(b),(c),(d) and (e) are
mutually exclusive of each other. Further, Mr. Dalal submitted that what
must be considered by Respondent No.3 is the form and substance of the
application and not the Section under which it is made.
12. Mr. Dalal submitted that the very purpose of Section 49 was to ensure
that the owner of the property should not be deprived of the right to enjoy
and use his/her property, which is a constitutional right under Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India. Mr. Dalal, therefore, submitted that such
Page 4 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
technical objections of Respondent No.3 come in the way of the Petitioner
enjoying the benefits and value attached to its property which is lost because
of the reservation put in place by the Respondents.
13. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dalal relied upon the following
Judgements :
a) Aone Land Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2019
SCC OnLine Bom 9845.
b) Gopal Kashinath Lad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Order
dated 1st July, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 4661 of 2021).
c) Chhabildas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 784
d) Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(1999) 1 SCC 354.
e) State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. Vs. Shubam Sangra
(2022) 20 SCC 1.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3.
14. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed an Affidavit-in-Reply dated 5 th
November, 2025 of one Abhijit Ketkar, working as Assistant Director of
Town Planning, Pune. Relying upon the said Affidavit, Ms. Kavita Solunke,
the learned AGP, submitted that the Purchase Notice under Section 49(1) has
Page 5 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
to be accompanied by a copy of an application made to the planning authority
under the provisions of Section 49(2) of the MRTP Act and a copy of any
Order or decision of the Authority and of the State Government, in respect of
which a Notice has been given. Ms. Solunke submitted that, in the present
case, the Petitioner has failed to annex a copy of the application made to the
Planning Authority alongwith the Purchase Notice and, therefore, the
Purchase Notice has been rightly rejected by Respondent No. 3.
15. Ms. Solunke further submitted that it is mandatory for the Petitioner to
file a claim with the Municipal Council regarding not getting a reasonable
price and submitting a copy of it along with the Purchase Notice. However, as
per the said Purchase Notice given by the Petitioner, it does not appear that
the Petitioner has filed a claim with the Municipal Council. Therefore, since a
copy of such claim has not been submitted along with the Purchase Notice,
the Petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 49(2) of the
MRTP Act, and the Petitioner’s Purchase Notice has been rightly rejected.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16. Section 49 of the MRTP Act reads as under :
“49. Obligation to acquire land on refusal of permission or on
grant of permission in certain cases
(1) Where
Page 6 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
(a) any land is designated by a plan as subject to compulsory
acquisition, or
(b) any land is allotted by a plan for the purpose of any
functions of a Government or local authority or statutory
body, or is land designated in such plan as a site proposed to
be developed for the purposes of any functions of any such
Government, authority or body, or
(c) any land is indicated in any plan as land on which a
highway is proposed to be constructed or included, or
[(d) any land for the development of which permission is
refused or is granted subject to conditions, and any owner of
land referred to in clauses (a), (b) (c) or (d) claims-
(i) that the land has become incapable of reasonably
beneficial use in its existing state, or
(ii) (where planning permission is given subject to
conditions) that the land cannot be rendered capable of
reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of the
permitted development in accordance with the conditions;
or]
(e) the owner of the land because of its designation or
allocation in any plan claims that he is unable to sell it except
at a lower price than that at which he might reasonably have
been expected to sell if it were not so designated or allocated,
the owner or person affected may serve on the State
Government within such time and in such manner, as is
prescribed by regulations, a notice (hereinafter referred to as
"the purchase notice") requiring the Appropriate Authority to
purchase the interest in the land in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
(2) The purchase notice shall be accompanied by a copy of any
application made by the applicant to the Planning Authority, and
of any order or decision of that Authority and of the State
Government, if any, in respect of which the notice is given.
(3) On receipt of a purchase notice, the State Government shall
forthwith call from the Planning Authority and the Appropriate
Authority such report or records or both, as may be necessary,
which those authorities shall forward to the State Government as
Page 7 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
soon as possible but not later than thirty days from the date of
their requisition.
(4) On receiving such records or reports, if the State Government
is satisfied that the conditions specified in sub-section (1) are
fulfilled, and that the order or decision for permission was not
duly made on the ground that the applicant did not comply with
any of the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations, it may
confirm the purchase notice, or direct that planning permission
be granted without condition or subject to such conditions as will
make the land capable of reasonably beneficial use. In any other
case, it may refuse to confirm the purchase notice, but in that
case, it shall give the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
(5) If within a period of six months from the date on which a
purchase notice is served the State Government does not pass
any final order thereon, the notice shall be deemed to have been
confirmed at the expiration of that period.
(6) [* * *]
(7) If within one year from the date of confirmation of the notice,
the Appropriate Authority fails to make an application to acquire
the land in respect of which the purchase notice has been
confirmed as required under section 126, the reservation,
designation, allotment, indication or restriction on development
of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed; and thereupon, the
land shall be deemed to be released from the reservation,
designation, or, as the case may be, allotment, indication or
restriction and shall become available to the owner for the
purpose of development otherwise permissible in the case of
adjacent land, under the relevant plan.”
17. The issue involved in the present Petition is whether the Petitioner’s
Purchase Notice could have been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner
had not made an application under Section 49(2) of the MRTP Act.
18. In our view, this issue is no longer res integra. In Aone Developers
(supra), an Order dated 5th April, 2017 was passed by the Urban Development
Page 8 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
Department, by which a Purchase Notice of the Petitioner therein came to be
rejected on the ground that the Petitioner had not submitted any
development proposal to the Planning Authority in respect of the land in
question and, since, the land was situated in the residential zone, it was
always open for the Petitioner to construct upon the remaining portion of the
land by using the FSI/TDR of the reserved DP road. This Order dated 5 th
April, 2017 was assailed by filing a Writ Petition. In the said Judgement, a
Division Bench of this Court held that sub-section (2) of Section 49 is
unambiguous and it simply conveys that the Purchase Notice shall be
accompanied by a copy of an application made by the Applicant to the
Planning Authority and of any Order or decision of that Authority and of the
State Government on such application, if any, in respect of which Notice is
given. Sub-section (2) thus intends to cover only that contingency where any
application was preferred to the Planning Authority and which has resulted
into any order or decision of that Authority and of the State Government.
Sub-section (2) cannot be read to be applicable to each of the contingencies
in sub-section (1) but it will have to relate itself only where any application
has been preferred to the Planning Authority and any order or decision on
the same is made. The Judgement further holds that the indication is to be
found in sub-section (3), which provides that on receipt of the Purchase
Page 9 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
Notice, the State Government shall forthwith call from the Planning
Authority and the appropriate Authority such records as may be necessary.
19. Further, in Aone Developers (supra), this Court held that a perusal of
Section 49 contemplates several contingencies resulting into an obligation to
acquire the land. The contingencies enumerated are independent of each
other, and one of the contingencies contemplated is whether the permission
for development is sought and the same is refused or is granted subject to
such conditions, and in such a contingency, the owner of the land may claim
that the land has become incapable of reasonable beneficial use in its existing
state, or that it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by
carrying out the permitted development where the permission is granted
subject to some conditions. Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 49
contemplates an independent contingency where the owner of the land,
because of its designation or allocation in the plan, claims that he is unable to
sell it except at a lower price than that at which he might reasonably have
been expected to sell, if it were not so designated or allocated. The Purchase
Notice which is served in the backdrop of the contingency contemplated in
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 can be related and connected to
sub-section (2) of Section 49, where the Purchase Notice shall be
accompanied by a copy of an application made and an order or decision of
that Authority, if at all there is any. However, this would not be so in the case
Page 10 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
of a Purchase Notice served on the Appropriate Authority, to purchase the
interest in the land owned by taking aid of Clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of
Section 49.
20. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 15 (part) and 16 of the said Judgement are
relevant and are set out hereunder :
“10. The said provision is carved out by the legislature as an
obligation to acquire land on refusal of permission or grant of
permission in certain cases, as can be discerned from the
marginal note of the said section. Sub-section (1) of Section 49
contemplates several situations where the owner of the land or
the 'person affected' may serve on the State Government a notice
referred to as 'the Purchase Notice' requiring appropriate
authority to purchase the interest in the land in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. The contingencies contemplated when
such a notice can be served are mutually exclusive/independent
of each other and are contained in clauses(a), (b), (c), (d) and
(e). Any owner of the land referred to in the aforesaid clause or
the person affected by staking his claim as contemplated in
clause (i) and (ii) i.e. the land has become incapable of
reasonably beneficial use in its existing state or (ii) where the
planning permission is given (subject to conditions) that the land
cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the
carrying out of the permitted development in accordance with
the conditions, it is this owner who falls within any of the
category (a), (b), (c), (d) (e) may serve a Purchase Notice.
11. Sub-section (1) of Section 49 on its plain reading is
indicative of the several contingencies pertaining to the land of
an owner and all the contingencies are carved out as
independent exigencies and this can very well be inferred since
the word "or" is indicative that each contingency/situation is to
be read disjunctively. The attempt of Shri Pethe is to read the
said provision to convey and interpret it by restricting clauses (i)
and (ii) to clause (a) of sub-section (1).
12. The said submission needs to be tested. The State
Government has rejected the Purchase Notice on the ground that
the petitioner has not preferred any application for development
of the remaining plot of land unaffected by the reservation to the
Page 11 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
Corporation. According to Shri Pethe, it is only when the
permission for development is refused or granted subject to
conditions the claim can be staked to the effect contemplating
under clause (i) or (ii) or clause (e), where the owner of the land
because of its designation or allocation in any plan claims that
he is unable to sell it expect at a lower price than that at which
he might have been reasonably expected to sell, if it is not so
designated. Emphasis of Shri Pethe is on sub-section (2) of
Section 49 which make it imperative for the Purchase Notice to
be accompanied by a copy of the application made by the
applicant to the planning authority and any order or decision of
that authority. We are unable to accede ourselves to the
submission of Shri Pethe. The effort while interpreting a statute
should be to read it as it is if the reading creates an ambiguity,
apply the rules of interpretation. Sub-section (2) is unambiguous
and it simply conveys that the Purchase Notice shall be
accompanied by a copy of any application made by the applicant
to the planning authority and of any order or decision of that
authority and of the State Government on such application, if
any, in respect of which notice is given. Sub-section (2) thus
intends to cover only that contingency where any application
was preferred to the planning authority and which has resulted
into any order or decision of that authority and of the State
Government. Sub-section (2) however cannot be read to be
applicable to each of the contingencies in sub-section (1) but it
will have to relate itself only where any application has been
preferred to the planning authority and any order or decision on
the same. The indication is to be found in sub-section (3) which
provides that on receipt of the purchase notice, the State
Government shall forthwith call from the Planning Authority
and the Appropriate Authority such report or records as may be
necessary. Sub-section (4) further stipulates that on receipt of
such reports or records if the State Government is satisfied that
the conditions specified in sub-section (1) are fulfilled and that
the order or decision for permission was not duly made or
subject to such conditions on the ground that the applicant did
not comply with the provisions of the Act or Rules or
Regulations, it may confirm the purchase notice or direct that
the planning permission may be granted without condition as
will make the land capable of reasonably beneficial use. Sub-
section (7) contemplates that if within one year from the date of
confirmation of the notice, there is failure on the part of the
appropriate authority to make an application to acquire the land
in respect of which the purchase notice has been confirmed as
required under Section 126, the reservation, designation,
Page 12 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
allotment or the restriction imposed on the development of the
land shall be deemed to have lapses and thereupon the land
stands released from the said reservation/designation or
restriction and becomes available to the owner.
15. …...Perusal of Section 49 contemplates several
contingencies resulting into an obligation to acquire the land.
The contingencies enumerated are independent of each other
and one of the contingency contemplated is whether the
permission for development is sought and the same is refused or
is granted subject to such conditions and in such a contingency,
the owner of the land may claim that the land has become
incapable of reasonable beneficial use in its existing state or that
it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by
carrying out the permitted development where the permission is
granted subject to some conditions. However, clause (e) of sub-
section (1) of Section 49 contemplates an independent
contingency where the owner of land because of its designation
or allocation in the plan claims that he is unable to sell it except
at a lower price, then, that at which he might reasonably have
been expected to sell, if it were not so designated or allocated.
The purchase notice which is served in the backdrop of
contingency contemplated in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 49 can be related and connected to sub-section (2) of
Section 49 where the purchase notice shall be accompanied by a
copy of an application made and an order or decision of that
authority, if at all there is any…...
16. Since the petitioner has pleaded his case put in the purchase
notice by him on 17th November 2016 and has required the
appropriate authority to purchase the interest in the land owned
by him, by taking aid of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section
49 and has made it clear that since he is invoking the said
clause, the notice is not accompanied with any application for
development permission filed before the Planning Authority or
any order passed by the said authority as contemplated in
subsection (2) of Section 49. When he specifically rests his case
on clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 which according to
us, is an independent contingency, not depending on clause (d)
of sub-section (1), the net result as is derived at by the impugned
order or the one which is sought to be put forth before us by the
learned counsel for the Corporation would defeat the very
purpose underlying Section 49. We are not inclined to constrict
Page 13 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
the operation of Section 49 merely to a factum where an
application for permission for development is made and it is
refused or is granted subject to the conditions. The provision
contained in the legislature has to be read as it is and if there is
no ambiguity in the same, it is not permissible for the Court to
interpret it, when the interpretation is uncalled for. A plain
reading of Section 49 in its entirety take us to an irresistible
conclusion which prompt us to quash and set aside the
impugned order passed by the State Government.”
21. In Gopal Lad (supra), the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, by
following Aone Developers (supra), has taken the same view. In that case,
due to a reservation, the Petitioner therein was unable to sell his land except
at a lower price than the market price. Accordingly, on the said ground the
Petitioner served a Purchase Notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act upon
the Secretary of Urban Development Department, Government of
Maharashtra. However, by the impugned order dated 24 th December, 2020,
the Respondents therein rejected the said Purchase Notice dated 17 th June,
2020 on the ground that the same was not accompanied with any application
for development permission made before any Planning Authority. This Court,
by relying upon the Judgement in Aone Developers (supra), held that, in the
said Judgement, this Court had observed that clause (e) of sub-section 49(1)
contemplates an independent contingency where the owner of the land
because of its designation or allocation or any plan claims that he is unable to
sell it except at a lower price than at which it might have been reasonably
excepted to sell, if it were not so designated or allocated. This Court further
Page 14 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
went on to hold that, from the observations made by this Court in Aone
Developers (supra), it was clear that contingency mentioned in clause (e) of
sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the MRTP Act and in sub-section (2) of
Section 49 of the MRTP Act are independent of each other. If no such
application is there on part of Petitioner or affected person made before the
Authority and there is no decision taken by the Authority then there is no
question of annexing the same with the Purchase Notice. Therefore, when the
Purchase Notice of the Petitioner is only on the ground as contemplated in
clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 49, then asking for such an application
as contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the MRTP Act is not at all
necessary and therefore the rejection on that ground appeared highly
erroneous.
22. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said Judgement are relevant and are set
out hereunder :
“10. So far as the second reason of rejection of purchase
notice is concerned, the respondents have claimed that the
purchase notice was not accompanied by a copy of an application
made by the applicant to the planning Authority or any order or
decision of that Authority, as contemplated in sub-section (2) of
Section 49 of the MRTP Act. However, this Court (Coram: Ranjit
V. More and Bharati Dangre, JJ.) at the Principal Seat of
Bombay, in Writ Petition No. 9587 of 2017 in the case of Aone
Land Developers vs. State of Maharashtra and others, has
observed that, clause (e) of sub-section 49 contemplates an
independent contingency where the owner of the land because of
its designation or allocation in any plan claims that he is unable
to sell it except at a lower price than that at which he might have
been reasonably expected to sell, if it were not so designated or
allocated. On the contrary, sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the
Page 15 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
MRTP Act provides for annexing an application made and an
order or decision of that Authority if at all there is any. It has
been observed in the aforesaid judgment as below:
"The sequitor of the purchase notice culminates in
sub-section(4) where the State Government is
satisfied that the contingencies contemplated in
clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) are
fulfilled and that the order or decision for permission
was not duly made on the ground that there was no
compliance of certain provisions of the Act or Rules
and it may confirm the purchase notice or it may
direct the Planning Authority to grant permission
subject to such conditions so as to enable the owner
to make use of the land in a reasonably beneficial
manner. However, where there is a refusal to confirm
purchase notice, it contemplates an opportunity of
hearing being afforded to the person serving a
notice".
11. From the aforesaid observation, it is already made
clear that the contingencies mentioned in clause (e) of sub-
section (1) of Section 49 of the MRTP Act and in sub-section (2)
of Section 49 of the MRTP Act are independent of each other. If
no such application is there on the part of the petitioner or
affected person made before the Authority and any decision
taken thereof by the Authority, then there is no question of
annexing the same with the purchase notice. Therefore, when the
purchase notice of the petitioner is only on the ground as
contemplated in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 49, then
asking for such application as contemplated in sub-section (2) of
Section 49 of the MRTP Act, is not at all necessary, and
therefore, rejection on that ground appears highly erroneous.”
23. Applying the ratio of these decisions to the present case, since, the
Petitioner has given a Purchase Notice under both Section 49(1)(a) and 49(1)
(e), the same is not required to be accompanied by an application as referred
to under Section 49(2) of the MRTP Act. Section 49 (1)(a) provides for giving
Page 16 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
Purchase Notice where any land is designated by a plan as subject to
compulsory acquisition. Section 49 (1)(e) provides for giving a Purchase
Notice when the owner of the land because of its designation or allocation in
any plan claims that he is unable to sell it accept at a lower price than that at
which he might reasonably accepted to sell if it were not so designated or
allocated. In our view, both these situations do not warrant any application
being made by the Petitioner to the Planning Authority or of any order or
decision of that Authority and of the State Government on the said
application. For these reasons, in our view, the Purchase Notice dated 15 th
March, 2024 given by the Petitioner was not required to be accompanied by
an application as provided under Section 49(2). The Purchase Notice having
been given under Section 49(1)(a) and (e), to that extent, it must be
considered.
24. The Order dated 9th September, 2024 rejects the Purchase Notice on
the ground that it is not accompanied by an application referred to in Section
49(2). For all the reasons set out herein above, the said reason is incorrect
and hence Order dated 9th September, 2024 is required to be quashed and set
aside.
25. Further, Respondent No.3 would have to be directed to decide the
Purchase Notice dated 15th March, 2024 of the Petitioner under Section 49(1)
(a) and (e), without insisting for an application under Section 49(2) of the
Page 17 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
WP-16064-2024.doc
MRTP Act, on its own merits, within a period of six weeks from the date of
uploading of this Order.
ORDER
26. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and for all the reasons stated
herein above :
a) The Order dated 9th September, 2024 passed by Respondent
No.3 is hereby quashed and set aside.
b) Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the Purchase Notice dated
15th March, 2024 of the Petitioner under Section 49(1)(a) and (e)
without insisting upon an application under Section 49(2) of the MRTP
Act, and on its own merits, within a period of six weeks from the date
of uploading of this Order.
c) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
d) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order
as to costs.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R. I. CHAGLA, J.]
Page 18 of 18
September 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.