Bombay High Court
PRAKASH SOPAN KATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Section 127 does not effect automatic lapse; the landowner must serve a notice to the current planning authority and the authority’s failure to act within six months is required for lapse.
Summary
The petitioner, owner of three parcels of land in Village Dapodi, claimed that the reservation of his land in the Pune Municipal Corporation development plan had lapsed after more than ten years without acquisition, invoking Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The land later fell under the jurisdiction of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation following a jurisdictional change in 1997, and a new draft and final development plan were issued in 2000 and 2015 respectively. The respondents argued, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prafulla C. Dave, that Section 127 does not provide for automatic lapse; a landowner must serve a notice to the appropriate planning authority and the authority must then fail to act within six months. The Court agreed, holding that the petitioner’s earlier notices to the former authority are ineffective and that the reservation remains in force under the new authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with directions that the petitioner may now serve a proper notice to the current planning authority.
Issues considered
- Does Section 127 of the MRTP Act cause automatic lapse of reservation after ten years?
- Is the petitioner’s notice to the former planning authority sufficient to invoke lapse of reservation after jurisdictional transfer?
- What procedural steps must a landowner take to obtain release of land from reservation under the MRTP Act?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- reservation lapse
- Section 127
- MRTP Act
- development plan
- municipal corporation jurisdiction
- land acquisition
- notice requirement
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.08.25
11:21:44
1/6 5 WP.6366.2017.odt
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6366 OF 2017
Prakash Sopan Kate .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
…
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Deepak R. More a/w Mr. Shivram A. Gawade, for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2026
P.C:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner, being an owner of land bearing Survey
No. 5/1, admeasuring 39 Ares, 5/2, admeasuring 23 Ares, and
5/4, admeasuring 11.5 Ares, situated at Village Dapodi within
the limits of Respondent No.2, which is the subject matter of
the Writ Petition.
It is pleaded that, initially, the said lands were included
in the final development plan for Pune Municipal Corporation
and the notification issued on 05.01.1987 included these lands.
The Writ Petition also refers to the specific reservation
shown in the development plan, but since we are not
Rushikesh
2/6 5 WP.6366.2017.odt
concerned with the minute details thereof, we refrain
ourselves from referring to the unnecessary details. However,
with effect from 11.09.1997, the Urban Development
Department altered the limits of City of Pimpri Chinchwad so
as to include certain areas of revenue villages specified in
Column 2 of Schedule 1, with the boundaries specified, and this
included Village Dapodi, and from 11.09.1997, the subject
property of the present Writ Petition also stood relegated to
the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.
3. The Petitioner, based on the assumption that his land
was reflected in the development plan of Pune Municipal
Corporation and since no steps were taken for its acquisition,
addressed a notice to the Town Planning Authority, State of
Maharashtra, on 11.09.1996, to be followed by a notice dated
25.11.2015 addressed to the Collector, Pune, as well as the
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and its Deputy
Director of Planning, requesting that the land be deleted from
the reservation, as despite passage of 30 to 34 years, the land
continued to be reserved and no steps are taken for its
acquisition.
In the absence of any action being taken on the notice
issued by him by invoking Section 127 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “the MRTP
Act”), the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
declaration that the reservation has lapsed under the
provisions of Section 127, by issuing an appropriate
writ/direction.
4. We have heard learned counsel representing Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, who, by inviting our
Rushikesh
3/6 5 WP.6366.2017.odt
attention to the notification issued by the Urban Development
Department dated 11.09.1997, would submit that, upon the
lands from several villages, including Dapodi, being declared to
have fallen within its jurisdiction, a draft development plan
was published in the year 2000, to be followed by the final
development plan on 02.03.2015. According to the learned
counsel, it is from this date the provisions of the MRTP Act,
including Section 127, are made applicable as far as Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation is concerned, and he would
invoke the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Prafulla
C. Dave & Ors. Vs. Municipal Commissioner & Ors. 1, which has
categorically held that Section 127 of the MRTP Act, or any
provision therein, do not provide for automatic lapsing of
acquisition, reservation, allotment or designation of land
included in any development plan on the expiry of 10 years.
On the other hand, the scheme contemplate that upon expiry
of the period of 10 years, the landowner or person interested is
mandated by statute to take certain positive steps, namely,
issuance/service of notice evidencing his clear intention, and
there must occur a corresponding failure of the authority to
take requisite steps as demanded therein, wherein the action
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act shall be the consequence.
Thus, what is contemplated is a notice by the person
interested/the owner anterior in point of time to the
preparation of the revised plan, and, in specific, paragraph 21
of the said decision has been invoked, which reads to the
following effect:
“21. Under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, reservation,
1 (2015) 11 SCC 90
Rushikesh
4/6 5 WP.6366.2017.odt
allotment or designation of any land for any public
purpose specified in a development plan is deemed to
have lapsed and such land is deemed to be released
only after notice on the appropriate authority is
served calling upon such authority either to acquire
the land by agreement or to initiate proceedings for
acquisition of the land either under the MRTP Act or
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said
authority fails to comply with the demand raised
thereunder. Such notice can be issued by the owner or
any person interested in the land only if the land is
not acquired or proceedings for acquisition are not
initiated within ten years from the date on which the
final development plan had come into force. After
service of notice by the landowner or the person
interested, a mandatory period of six months has to
elapse within which time the authority can still
initiate the necessary action. Section 127 of the
MRTP Act or any other provision of the said Act does
not provide for automatic lapsing of the acquisition,
reservation or designation of the land included in any
development plan on the expiry of ten years. On the
contrary, upon expiry of the said period of ten years,
the landowner or the person interested is mandated
by the statute to take certain positive steps i.e. to
issue/serve a notice and there must occur a
corresponding failure on the part of the authority to
take requisite steps as demanded therein in order to
bring into effect the consequences contemplated by
Section 127. What would happen in a situation where
the landowner or the person interested remains
silent and in the meantime a revised plan under
Section 38 comes into effect is not very difficult to
fathom. Obviously, the period of ten years under
Section 127 has to get a fresh lease of life of another
ten years.”
We find substance in the said submission, as we must
note that, as far as the land from Village Dapodi which came
under the control of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Rushikesh
5/6 5 WP.6366.2017.odt
under Section 34(2) of the MRTP Act, which relates to the
preparation of a development plan for an additional area, it is
contemplated that where any area is withdrawn from the
jurisdiction of a Planning Authority, the proposals, if any,
made for that area so withdrawn in a Development Plan shall
also be deemed to be withdrawn therefrom.
Therefore, upon reading of the said provision, it is
evidently clear that when the area which was earlier
designated as reserved for certain purposes by the Pune
Municipal Corporation, on its falling within the jurisdiction of
Respondent No. 2, i.e. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation, stands withdrawn from the erstwhile
reservation, and it could be subjected to a fresh reservation by
the Planning Authority, and this is precisely what was done by
Respondent No.3 when it published a draft development plan,
to be followed by a final development plan in which this land is
shown against certain reservations. In such circumstances,
the notices issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on the
presumption that the reservation was found in the
development plan of the Pune Municipal Corporation cannot be
the basis for seeking a declaration that the reservation has
lapsed.
Nonetheless, it is open for the Petitioner now to address
notices to the new Planning Authority on the expiry of the
period of ten years, and it is for the new Planning Authority to
take such steps as are permissible under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act.
Though learned counsel, Dr. Warunjikar, has vehemently
asserted before us that after issuance of the notice, the Writ
Rushikesh
6/6 5 WP.6366.2017.odt
Petition was pending before this Hon’ble Court, and even
counting ten years from 2015, the ten year period has already
lapsed, we must make it clear that the mandate of law is very
specific that a landowner or a person interested in the land
and seeking its release from reservation must issue a notice
clearly expressing his intention, and upon such a notice being
issued, it is open for the Planning Authority to take such steps
as are contemplated in terms of M/s. Girnar Traders Vs. State
of Maharashtra. & Ors.2 In the wake of the decision of the
Constitution Bench in M/s. Girnar Traders (supra), we do not
accede to his request, as we expect him to follow the procedure
strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is
disposed of.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
2 (2011) 3 SCC 1
Rushikesh
Checking your session…