Bombay High Court
GANESH VISHNU LANDGE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The reservation of the land for the 18‑metre HCMTR road has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
Summary
The petitioners, a family of landowners, owned land reserved in 1995 for the widening of an 18‑metre HCMTR road under the Development Plan of Pimpri‑Chinchwad. After the statutory ten‑year period expired in 2005, they served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 on 27 May 2022, authorising acquisition within 24 months. The municipal corporation objected, claiming the notice was incomplete, lacked maps, was signed by only one co‑owner, and that a 2011 letter to the Collector constituted steps toward acquisition. The High Court held that none of these objections satisfied the statutory requirements, that a prior letter does not amount to commencement of acquisition, and that a notice signed by a duly authorised co‑owner is sufficient. Consequently, the court declared the reservation lapsed, granted a writ of mandamus, and ordered the respondents to publish a gazette notification of the lapse.
Issues considered
- Whether the reservation of the land for road widening has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
- Whether the municipal corporation's objections (absence of map, DP extract, co‑owner signatures, and alleged prior steps) defeat the petitioners' claim of lapse.
- Whether a letter to the Collector constitutes "steps" towards acquisition within the meaning of Section 127.
- Whether a purchase notice must be signed by all co‑owners or can be issued by a single authorised co‑owner.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 126, 127, 31(5)
Subjects
- Reservation lapse
- Section 127
- MRTP Act
- Land acquisition
- Writ of mandamus
- Development plan
- Road widening
- Co‑owner notice
- Gazette notification
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUPALI 56-WP-18493-2024.doc
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.08.27
19:01:14
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 18493 OF 2024
1. Mr. Ganesh Vishnu Landge ]
Age : 53 years : Occ : Agriculturist & Business ]
]
2) Sudama Alias Baban Baloba Landge ]
Age : 75 years; Occ.:Agriculturist & Business ]
]
3) Dattatraya Vishnu Landge ]
Age : 69 years; Occ.: Agriculturist & Business ]
]
4) Ramesh Mahadu Landge ]
Age : 61 years; Occ.: Agriculturist & Business ]
]
5) Prabhakar Mahadu Landge ]
Age : 48 years; Occ.: Agriculturist & Business ]
]
All Residing at Vishnu Smruti Niwas ]
Survey No. 434/9, Kasarwadi, ]
Nashik Phata, Pune – 411 018. ]...Petitioners
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra Through, ]
The Secretary, Urban Development ]
Department, Having Office at ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ]
]
2) The Deputy Director ]
Town Planning Department (P.C.M.C.) ]
]
3) Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation ]
Wakodikar 1/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
(P.C.M.C.) ]
]
4) The Municipal Commissioner Pimpri ]
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation ]
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 having office ]
At Old Bombay Poona Road, ]
Pimpri, Pune – 411 018. ]...Respondents
Mr. Girish Godbole i/b Mr. Shivraj Patne for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kedar B. Dighe for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the PCMC.
Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, A.G.P for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12th AUGUST, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th AUGUST, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
1. By the present writ petition, the Petitioners are seeking
the Writ of Mandamus against the State Government to forthwith
publish an order under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional &
Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’ in short) notifying that the
Reservation namely “Development Plan Road” for road widening that
Wakodikar 2/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
existed on the land bearing Survey No. 446/4 corresponding to C.S.
No.2084 and 2085 situated at Village Bhosari, Kasarvadi, Taluka
Haveli, District Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said land’) has
lapsed.
2. The land in question belonging to the Petitioners was
reserved for ‘18 Mtr. HCMTR road widening’. On 18 th September,
1995, the respondent No.1 had sanctioned the Development Plan for
Pimpri Chinchwad City and as indicated above, the said land was
reserved for road widening of 18 Mtr. HCMTR road. The said road
was not acquired for the purpose of which it was reserved for. On
27th May, 2022, the Petitioners issued a Purchase Notice under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the Respondent – Corporation. The
Respondent – Corporation on 13th December, 2023 replied the same
and raised certain objections. Inspite of the Purchase Notice, the
land was not acquired. Hence, on 14 th November, 2024 the present
writ petition was filed.
Wakodikar 3/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
3. Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioners submitted that the said land was reserved for road
widening of 18 Mtr. HCMTR road which was evident from the
sanctioned Development Plan published by the Pimpri Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation vide Notification Dated 18th September, 1995.
He submitted that the period of 10 years from the notification
published as mentioned above, elapsed on 19th September, 2005.
The Petitioners decided to issue a Purchase Notice and accordingly
on 20th May, 2022, a notarized Authority Letter was issued by the
Petitioners Nos.2 to 5 specifically authorizing the petitioner No.1 to
address the notice claiming lapsing of reservation and to take further
steps. Pursuant to the said authority letter, on 27 th May, 2022, the
Petitioners issued a Purchase Notice under Section 127 of the MRTP
Act requesting that appropriate steps be taken for commencement of
acquisition proceedings within 24 months, failing which, the
reservation would deem to have been lapsed. He submitted that
inspite of the fact that the corporation received a letter, the
Corporation belatedly on 13th December, 2023 filed their reply and
Wakodikar 4/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
raised certain objections. The Petitioners, through their Advocate
sent a rejoinder on 6th March, 2024, thereby negating contentions
raised by the respondent No.2. According to Mr. Godbole, learned
Senior Counsel, the period of 24 months to acquire the land as
contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act expired on 28 th
May, 2024. Inspite of this, the land was not acquired. Hence, the
petition was filed. He relied upon the following Judgments :
(i) Girnar Traders V. State of Maharashtra1
(ii) Shrirampur Municipal Council V. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji
Dawkher2.
(iii) M/s C.V.Shah V. State of Maharashtra.3
(iv) Dattatray Dharmadhikari V. State of Maharashtra4
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Kedar Dighe appearing for the
Respondent – Corporation submitted that vide the Resolution
No.340/2017, the respondent declared its intention to prepare
revised DP plan on 9th August, 2019 and accordingly on 15th
1 (II) (2007) 7 SCC 555
2 (2013) 5 SCC 627
3 2005SCC OnLine Bom 542.
4 WP/4823/2014 dated 16th December, 2014
Wakodikar 5/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
November, 2019, a Notification was published by the State
Government inviting suggestions/objections from the people at large.
He submitted that knowing very well about the initiation of process
of revision of development plan, the notice under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act was sent by the respondent on 27 th May, 2022. He further
submitted that although the Petitioners sent the notice, surprisingly
they did not raise the objections. He relied on the fact that the
Respondent – Corporation vide reply dated 13th December, 2023
informed the Petitioners that the notice is incomplete and not strictly
as per the provisions of Section 127. He further submitted that
Section 127 makes it statutorily necessary for the owner or any
person interested in the land, to serve the notice alongwith the title
documents or interest in the land. He further submitted that the
petition be dismissed entirely. He relied upon the following
Judgments.
(i) Nilesh Prakashrao More V. State of Maharashtra5
(ii) Prafulla C. Dave & Ors. V. Municipal Commissioner & Ors.6
5 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2257
6 (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 90.
Wakodikar 6/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
respective parties. The present proceedings are filed under Section
127 of the MRTP Act, inter alia, praying for a Writ of Mandamus that
the reservation has lapsed. The land in question, was reserved for
the road widening of 18 Mtr. HCMTR road vide Notification dated
18th September, 1995. The period of 10 years as stipulated in the
statute expired on 19th September, 2005. All the Petitioners issued an
authority letter on 20th May, 2022 authorizing the petitioner No.1 to
address a notice for lapsing of the reservation. The Petitioners on
27th May, 2022 addressed a notice as contemplated under Section
127 of the MRTP Act requesting that appropriate steps be taken for
commencement of acquisition within a period of 24 months from the
date of issuance of this notice, failing which, the reservation would
deem to have been lapsed. In response to the Purchase Notice
issued by the Petitioners, the respondent No.2 addressed a reply. The
following were the objections raised by the respondent No.2 :
Wakodikar 7/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
“(i) Government measurement map not annexed.
(ii) D.P extract not annexed.
(iii) Notice addressed only by one of the co-owners.
(iv) Proposal for acquisition was already forwarded to
Collector by letter dated 14th September, 2011.
(v) Since acquisition proceedings already commenced –
Petitioners’ Section 127 Notice not legally acceptable.
6. The Petitioners through their Advocate addressed a
rejoinder alongwith the supportive case laws. The period of 24
months as contemplated in the Notice dated 27th May, 2022 ended on
28th May, 2024. After this period, the respondent No.2 addressed a
sur-rejoinder dated 19th July, 2024 contending that the proposal for
acquisition is forwarded to the Collector vide letter dated 14th
September, 2011. It is in light of the aforesaid facts that the
respondent opposed grant of any relief in the present petition.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girnar
Traders (supra) has elaborately stated as to what were the steps
contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act towards
Wakodikar 8/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
acquisition of land. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
that if any private land is shown as reserved, allotted or designated
for a purpose specified in a development plan, the same may be
acquired within 10 years either by agreement or by following
procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter,
there has to be a service of Purchase Notice and if the steps are not
taken by the Corporation for acquisition of the land, the acquisition
is deemed to have been lapsed.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered as to
what are the steps towards acquisition of the land. The entire thurst
of the argument of the Corporation is that the Corporation had
initiated steps to publish a Notification for preparing a revised DP
Development Plan and accordingly resolution was passed by the
Corporation bearing Resolution No. 340/2017 dated 9 th August,
2019. The Corporation also relied upon the proposal for acquisition
forwarded to the Collector by the Municipal Corporation vide letter
dated 14th September, 2011 and claimed that they had taken steps
Wakodikar 9/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
towards acquisition. This is all that the Corporation had done in
response to the Purchase Notice.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shrirampur
Municipal Council (supra) had observed as under :
“42. We are further of the view that the majority in Girnar
Traders (2) had rightly observed that steps towards the
acquisition would really commence when the State
Government takes active steps for the acquisition of the
particular piece of land which leads to publication of the
declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Any other
interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127 of
the 1966 Act will make the provisions wholly unworkable
and leave the landowner at the mercy of the Planning
Authority and the State Government.
43. The expression "no steps as aforesaid" used in Section
127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the context of the
provisions of the 1894 Act and mere passing of a
resolution by the Pianning Authority or sending of a letter
to the Collector or even the State Government cannot be
treated as commencement of the proceedings for the
acquisition of land under the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act. By
enacting Sections 125 to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State
Legislature has made a definite departure from the
scheme of acquisition enshrined in the 1894 Act. But a
holistic reading of these provisions makes it clear that
while engrafting the substance of some of the provisions
Wakodikar 10/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and leaving out other
provisions, the State Legislature has ensured that the
landowners/other interested persons, whose land is
utilised for execution of the development plan/town
planning scheme, etc., are not left high and dry. This is the
reason why time-limit of ten years has been prescribed in
Section 31(5) and also under Sections 126 and 127 of the
1966 Act for the acquisition of land, with a stipulation that
if the land is not acquired within six months of the service
of notice under Section 127 or steps are not commenced
for acquisition, reservation of the land will be deemed to
have lapsed. Shri Naphade's interpretation of the scheme
of Sections 126 and 127, if accepted, will lead to absurd
results and the landowners will be deprived of their right
to use the property for an indefinite period without being
paid compensation. That would tantamount to depriving
the citizens of their property without the sanction of law
and would result in violation of Article 300-A of the
Constitution.”
10. In light of the aforesaid observations, it is clear that
merely sending a letter to Collector for acquisition of the reserved
land would not amount to steps towards acquisition of land and
hence, the contentions of the Respondent – Corporation that the
steps were taken towards acquisition cannot be considered as a valid
defence.
Wakodikar 11/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
11. The respondent – Corporation had also raised an
objection that the Government measurement plan and DP Plan were
not annexed. In our view this is not what was important. There is
no requirement in the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act that
any map or DP extract is required to be annexed as a matter of fact.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent was unable to point
out any provision to show that it was mandatory to annex the
Government Measurement Map or the DP extract.
12. In this connection, it is necessary to reproduce Section
127 of the MRTP Act as it stood at the time of issuing notice under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act by the Petitioners.
“Section 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
Wakodikar 12/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
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.”
13. On plain reading of the aforesaid Judgment in the case of
Shrirampur Municipal Council (Supra), it clearly indicates that the
insistence of the Respondent – Corporation upon measurement map
or the DP extract is totally uncalled for. As a matter of fact, the only
requirement of Section 127 is that the Purchase Notice must be
served on the Planning Authority and that to within the time
stipulated in the said statute. It would be too preposterous to
conclude that the Planning Authority to whom the Purchase Notice is
Wakodikar 13/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
issued needs to be forwarded the Government Map and the DP
extract. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of Sanjay
Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission7, has held as under :
“19..... It is well settled that courts will not add words to a
statute or read into the statute words not in it. Even if the
courts come to the conclusion that there is any omission in
the words used, it cannot make up the deficiency, where
the wording as it exists is clear and unambiguous. While
the courts can adopt a construction which will carry out
the obvious intention of the legislative or the rule-making
authority, it cannot set at naught the legislative intent
clearly expressed in a statute or the rules. ...”
15. Thus, if the interpretation as advanced by the Respondent
– Corporation is considered, then it would be doing violence to the
statute and would amount to re-legislation.
16. The contention of the respondent that the notice was
addressed only by one of the co-owner and hence is not a valid
notice, also deserves to be rejected. At the cost of repetition, Section
127 of the MRTP Act does not prescribe that all the co-owners should
sign the notice. It is enough if only one co-owner has signed the
7 (2007) 3 SCC 750
Wakodikar 14/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
notice. We must also take note of the fact that the Petitioners have
specifically annexed notarized Authority Letter dated 20 th May, 2022
to the present petition. The Authority Letter is issued by all the co-
owners to the petitioner No.1 authorizing him to issue the notice. In
addition to this factual aspect, this Court, in the matter of Ramesh
Gopikishan Malani V. State of Maharashtra and Ors .8 has by relying
upon the Judgment in the matter of Keshav Manikrao Bagal V State
of Maharahstra9 held that it was not necessary for every co-owner to
give notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act and that issuance of
notice by one co-owner would be a valid notice of purchase u/s 127
of the MRTP Act.
17. Taking into account the over all conspectus of the matter,
it is clear that the land of the Petitioners was reserved for 18 Mtr.
HCMTR road vide Notification dated 18th September, 1995. The
period of ten years expired on 19 th September, 2005. A Purchase
Notice was issued by the Petitioners to the Corporation. The
8 WP/8836/2022 dtd.01/07/2024
9 WP/8066/2009
Wakodikar 15/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
Corporation had raised the objection on 13 th December, 2023 which
are dealt with us extensively in the foregoing paragraphs. Inspite of
passage of 24 months which expired on 28 th May, 2024, no
acquisition was completed nor any steps were taken towards
acquisition of the land. In the aforesaid premises, we hold that the
reservation for the 18 Mtr. HCMTR road on the property of the
Petitioners bearing Survey No. 446/4 corresponding to C.S.No.2084
& 2085 situated at Village Bhosari, Kasarvadi, Taluka Haveli, District
Pune, situated within the limits of PCMC have lapsed. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) It is declared that the reservation in respect of 18
Mtr. HCMTR road on the property of the Petitioners
bearing Survey No. 446/4 corresponding to C.S.No.2084
& 2085 situated at Village Bhosari, Kasarvadi, Taluka
Haveli, District Pune, has lapsed.
(iii) The Respondents are directed to publish a
notification in the Official Gazette declaring that the
Wakodikar 16/17
56-WP-18493-2024.doc
reservation i.e. 18 Mtr. HCMTR road on the property of
the Petitioners bearing Survey No. 446/4 corresponding to
C.S.No.2084 & 2085 situated at Village Bhosari,
Kasarvadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, has lapsed, within
a period of 12 weeks from today.
18. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 17/17
Checking your session…