BABURAO GANGADHAR JAGHAV SINCE DECD. THR. LEGAL HEIRSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THR. GP AND ORS

SAGAR MAGAR                                              WP-8829-2024.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 8829 OF 2024

1. Baburao Gangadhar Jadhav
Since Deceased through Legal heirs

1A. Vimal Baburao Jadhav
Age : 64, Occu. : Homemaker,
R/o. Ananwalli, Gangapur Road,
Nashik.


1B. Ganesh Baburao Jadhav
Age: 31, Occu. : Business,
R/o. Ananwalli, Gangapur Road,
Nashik.


1C. Dipak Baburao Jadhav
Age: 34, Occu. : Business,
R/o. Ananwalli, Gangapur Road,
Nashik.


1D. Pooja Baburao Jadhav
Age: 30, Occu. : Homemaker,
R/o. Ananwalli, Gangapur Road,
Nashik.


1E. Smt. Nirmala Baburao Jadhav
Age: 54, Occu. : Homemaker
R/o. Ananwalli, Gangapur Road,
Nashik.                                        …     Petitioners

        V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra,
Urban Development Department
Through the Government Pleader,
Office of Government Pleader,


                          1
SAGAR MAGAR                                                 WP-8829-2024.odt



1st Floor, PWD Building,
Bombay High Court, Fort,
Mumbai 400 032.


2. Commissioner, Nashik Municipal
Corporation, Nashik.


3. Director, Town Planning, Nashik
Municipal Corporation, Nashik.


4. The Collector, Nashik.                        …     Respondents.


                             -----------------
Mr. Bhushan Raut a/w Mr. Vipul Shirsath for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. B. Dighe a/w Ms. Savita Crasto, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                             -----------------

                                  CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, AND
                                  RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
                         RESERVED ON : 5th AUGUST 2026.
                      PRONOUNCED ON : 17th AUGUST 2026.

ORDER (Per: RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J) :-

1.            The present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and under Section 127 of the Maharashtra

Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “MRTP Act”). The

Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to declare that the

reservation for public amenities upon the subject property vide

sanctioned Development Plan for Nashik Corporation has lapsed and

that the said lands are released from the reservation and available to

the Petitioner for development.



                            2
SAGAR MAGAR                                                    WP-8829-2024.odt



2.            By an Order dated 2nd July 2024, notices were issued to the

Respondents. By the said Order, the Respondents were informed that,

the Petition would be heard and finally disposed of at the admission

stage. The record indicates that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been

duly served.

3.            Heard Mr. Bhushan Raut, learned counsel for the Petitioner,

Mr. Kedar Dighe along with Ms. Savita Crasto, learned AGP for the

Respondent-State.

4.            The Petitioners are the lawful owners of land admeasuring

1500 Sq. Mtrs., bearing Survey No. 14/1/A/3, situated at Village

Anandwalli, Taluka and District Nashik (said land). On 16 th November

1993, the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the Development

Plan for the Nashik Municipal Corporation. Under the said Development

Plan, the said land of the Petitioners was reserved for the purpose of

ESS/I Electric Sub Station under Reservation No. 74 and for Post Office

under Reservation No. 75. As the Respondents did not take steps to

acquire the property under reservation, the Petitioners issued purchase

notice dated 12th December 2006 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

The purchase notice was duly served upon and received by the Nashik

Municipal Corporation, which by reply letter dated 11 th January 2017

contend that it was not the acquiring body. It is not the stand of the

Corporation that, the purchase notice is defective. Thus, the Petitioner’s


                            3
SAGAR MAGAR                                                     WP-8829-2024.odt



purchase notice under Section 127 has to be regarded as a valid

purchase notice.

5.            The said reservation/proposal for land acquisition was

withdrawn by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company

on the ground that the land cost for the acquisition was high. The

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company was of the opinion

that they should explore the possibility of getting land at lower costs in

a nearby locality or suggest an alternative location. The said fact is

evident from the internal communications dated 24 th January 2007 and

29th February 2008 of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution

Company.

6.            On record is a copy of the Order dated 23rd September 2014,

passed in Writ Petition No. 8549 of 2012. The writ petition was filed by

the adjacent owner of the property, Mrs. Komal H. Malpani, who was

similarly affected by the same reservation of Post Office and Electric Sub

Station as the present Petitioners and had approached this Court

seeking a declaration that the said reservation in respect of her property

had lapsed. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court by Order

dated 23rd September 2014 with the following observations:-

          “16. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the inevitable
          conclusion is that the reservation of the petitioner's land in
          question namely for a 'electric substation and for a 'post office'
          has lapsed and the land has become available to the petitioner


                            4
SAGAR MAGAR                                                        WP-8829-2024.odt



          to be developed as otherwise permissible, as in the case of the
          adjacent land under the Development Plan. Writ Petition
          therefore deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in
          terms of prayer clause (a). Respondent no.7-State Government
          is directed to notify the lapsing of the reservation by an order
          to be published in the Official Gazette as per the requirements
          of section 127 (2) of the MRTP Act which shall be done as
          expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six
          months from today.”


7.            It is the case of the Petitioners that, in spite of the fact that

the earlier reservation had lapsed, the Petitioners' property was again

subjected and notified as reserved for public amenities/reservation No.

244 on 9th January 2017.

8.            The crux of the arguments of learned Counsel for the

Petitioners is that, the said said same land could not have been again

reserved for public amenities space when the earlier reservation of ESS

of Electric Sub Station and Post Office had lapsed after following the

procedure as prescribed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

9.            The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar

University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., And Ors. reported in (2003)

1 SCC 111 has observed that:-

              “14. In view of the above-referred settled legal position, the
              land of the petitioners cannot be again subjected to same
              reservation, which was made earlier in 1978 development
              plan and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the
              act of the Planning Authority subjecting the land of the
              petitioners once again to reservation is unsustainable in law

                              5
SAGAR MAGAR                                                       WP-8829-2024.odt



              and, therefore, we declare the said reservation as illegal and
              unsustainable in law and land of the petitioners, i.e. plot No.
              90/1 and 90/2 is declared to be released from reservation
              made in the final development plan, which was published on
              9-1-2004. The petitioners are entitled to make appropriate
              application for permission to develop the land in question to
              the Planning Authority. If such application is made by the
              petitioners, respondent No. 2 Planning Authority is directed
              to decide the same on its own merits according to law as
              early as possible and in any case not beyond the period of
              three months from the date of receipt of such application.”

10.           The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej And Boyce

Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2015

SC (Supp) 1 has observed that:-

              “….Therefore, we have to hold that the impugned
              notification is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed. The High
              Court has not examined the impugned notification from the
              viewpoint of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and interpretation
              of the abovesaid provision made in the case of Girnar Traders
              (2) (AIR 2007 SC 3180) (supra), therefore, giving liberty to
              the appellant by the High Court to file objections to the
              proposed notification is futile exercise on the part of the
              appellant for the reason that the State Government, once the
              purpose the land was reserved has not been utilized for that
              purpose and a valid statutory right is acquired by the land
              owner/interested person after expiry of 10 years from the
              date of reservation made in the Development Plan and 6
              months' notice period is also expired, the State Government
              has not commenced the proceedings to acquire the land by
              following the procedure as provided under Sections 4 and 6
              of the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the
              land which was reserved for the above purpose is lapsed and
              it enures to the benefit of the appellant herein. Therefore, it
              is not open for the State


                              6
SAGAR MAGAR                                                    WP-8829-2024.odt



              Government to issue the impugned notification proposing to
              modify the Development Plan from deleting for the purpose
              of Railways and adding to the Development Plan for the
              formation of Development Plan Road after lapse of 10 years
              and expiry of 6 months' notice served upon the State
              Government.”

11.           This Court in Anil Dattatraya Girme And Ors. Vs. State of

Maharashtra And Ors., reported in (2020) 1 Bom Cr 353, held that land

once dereserved from the Development Plan by operation of law cannot

be reserved again in a revised plan with some variation. On the same

lines, this Court in Trilok Singh Pahlajsingh Rajpal And Anr. Vs.

Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai And Ors. reported in 2022

SCC OnLine Bom 2347 and Pursushotam Vishandas Raheja Vs. State of

Maharashtra reported in (2022) SCC OnLine Bom 6704 has specifically

held that, land once dereserved from the development plan by

operation of law cannot be reserved again in the second revised pland

with some variation.

12.           The aforenoted judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

of this Court are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In

the present case, the first reservation was by the Development Plan

1993, wherein the Petitioners' said property was reserved for the

purpose of ESS Electric Sub Station and Post Office. The Petitioners had

served the required purchase notice dated 12 th December 2006 under

the MRTP Act. The proposal for the land acquisition was withdrawn by


                            7
SAGAR MAGAR                                                          WP-8829-2024.odt



the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company on the ground

that the land cost was on the higher side. The adjacent owner and

similarly affected individual, i.e. Komal H. Malpani, had challenged the

said reservation by filing Writ Petition No. 5849 of 2012, which was

allowed by Order dated 23rd September 2014 after hearing the parties,

and the reservation for the Electric Sub Station and for the Post Office

in the development plan of 1993 was declared to have lapsed. It is on

the same land of the Petitioners that the Government has once again

placed a reservation under the Development Plan of 2017 for public

amenities spaces.

13.            Considering the facts of the case and the aforenoted law, we

are of the view that land which is dereserved from the revised

Development Plan by operation of law cannot be reserved again in the

Development Plan with some variation in purpose.

14.            In view of the above the following order is passed.

         i)     The reservation of the Petitioners' land for public

         amenities space under Reservation No. 244 is deemed

         to have lapsed and the suit lands are released from the

         reservation    and    available   to   the   Petitioners   for

         development as per the permissible user and in

         accordance with law.

         ii)    Respondent authorities are directed to take


                              8
                               SAGAR MAGAR                                                      WP-8829-2024.odt



                                        necessary steps to correct Municipal records along with

                                        the revenue record, if required, in respect of the said

                                        land and for releasing the land from the reservation.

                                        iii)   Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)

                                        and (d).



                                   [RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.]                   [M.S. KARNIK, J.]

            Digitally signed
SAGAR   by SAGAR
        SANTOSH
SANTOSH MAGAR
MAGAR   Date: 2026.08.19
        13:17:56 +0530




                                                            9