M/S GANESH RAMCHANDRA APTE INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH ITS PARTNER, MR. NITIN VASANT APTEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

                                                               wp 9166-23.doc


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 9166 OF 2023

M/s. Ganesh Ramchandra Apte
Infrastructure.                                   ...Petitioner.
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others.              ...Respondents.
                                ——————
Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Jaglekar, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Pradeep Salgar for the Petitioner.

Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General with Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the
Respondent-State.

Mr. Dilip Bodake, Mr. Sharad Bhosale, Mr. Amar Dhumal and Mr. Mohan Khan for
the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
                                ——————
                                  Coram :   Milind N. Jadhav &
                                            Nandesh S. Deshpande , JJ.
                                  Reserved on : July 3, 2026.
                                  Pronounced on : July 31, 2026.

Judgment [Per Milind N. Jadhav, J.] :

1.       Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioner, Mr. Dilip Bodake, learned Advocate appearing for the

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Advocate General

for the State of Maharashtra.

2.       On 28th July 2025, this Court [Coram : G. S. Kulkarni and Arif S.

Doctor, JJ.] passed the following order after hearing the parties :


Patil-SR (ch)                     1 of 22
                                                                                      wp 9166-23.doc


                “1          On the earlier occasion and today we have heard Mr.
                Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner. The situation
                is quite peculiar. Petitioner is the owner of Final Plot No.79/15 C.T.S.
                No.224/15, admeasuring 5656.40 sq. mtrs. (said land) situated at
                Solapur. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the said land is
                unavailable for development to the Petitioner, as earlier it was
                reserved under the Draft Development Plan dated 26 th March 1999,
                published under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
                Planning Act, 1966 (for short "MRTP Act"). Later on 28 th October 2004,
                a revised Development Plan was sanctioned by the State Government,
                with efect from 15th December 2004. By a separate Notiication of
                the even date (dated 28 th October 2004) certain portions/parts of the
                Draft Development plan were excluded, such as EP-44. However, the
                reservation in respect of the said land continued which now being
                reserved for the purpose of 'Play Ground'. This is clear from the State
                Government Notiication dated 28th October 2004 annexed to the
                Petition. The entry in that regard reads thus:


                 "44 EP- Cultural   Centre     TPS-III, F.P. Land to the west of Site
                     44 Site No.7/38 and       No.79(pt.). No.7/38 is proposed to be
                         Public Semi Public                  included in this reservation
                         Zone.                               and the site so formed is
                                                             proposed to be reserved for
                                                             Playground."


                 2.        The contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that
                 the reservation has continued in respect of the said land, except for
                 the excluded portion mentioned in the Government Notiication
                 dated 28th October 2004. Notiication dated 21st April 2008 was
                 issued by the State Government sanctioning the modiication as
                 notiied on 28th October 2004 (supra).

                 3.          On the aforesaid backdrop, the Petitioner served a
                 purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 under Section 127 of the
                 MRTP Act on the Respondent-Municipal Corporation. In the context
                 of such purchase notice, after obtaining a report dated 16th
                 February 2015 from the Deputy Director, Town Planning, the General
                 Body of the Municipal Corporation passed a resolution dated 16th
                 April 2015, being Resolution No.58, to the efect that the
                 Corporation is not in a sound inancial condition to acquire the said
                 land, in response to the purchase notice. The said position as borne
                 out by Resolution No.58 dated 16th April 2015 by the Municipal
                 Corporation has been reiterated and/or maintained the position in a
                 recent communication received by the Petitioner, dated 25th July
                 2025, a copy of which is placed on record.

                 4.         Accordingly, the issue is the inability of the Municipal
                 Corporation to acquire the land which is reserved for public purpose,
                 for want of inancial resources. Admittedly, for such reason, the land
                 of the Petitioner is not being acquired within the stipulated period
                 as contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act on receipt of the
                 purchase notice issued under the said provision. If the land is not
                 acquired as ordained by the said provision, certainly by operation of
                 law, the reservation would be required to be held to be lapsed.




Patil-SR (ch)                                  2 of 22
                                                                                   wp 9166-23.doc


                5.          Although we may test the contentions as urged on behalf
                of the Petitioner on the facts as they stand, however, at the same
                time we cannot be oblivious to the larger issues which would arise,
                namely, that the Development Plan which is prepared by the
                Municipal Corporation and sanctioned by the State Government
                which has reservations made for larger public beneit like
                playgrounds, gardens, hospitals and several other public amenities
                etc. are likely to sufer in such manner, if a similar stand as taken by
                the Municipal Corporation and subject matter of the resolution
                dated 16th April 2015 that the Municipal Corporation has no
                inancial resources. If this is to be accepted a general stand of the
                Solapur Municipal Corporation in regard to any reservation which the
                development plan prescribes, it would eminently defeat the entire
                purpose of the Development Plan and a situation would be brought
                about that none of the lands would be acquired. In fact the
                development plan reservations would be rendered otiose. This is a
                serious situation and of a larger public harm and damage, as such
                public amenities subject matter of the reservations would never be
                available to the public at large, and more particularly open spaces in
                the nature of the Playgrounds, Gardens, Hospitals and other similar
                amenities.

                6.         In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the clear opinion
                that the Municipal Commissioner of the Solapur Municipal
                Corporation needs to place on record an aidavit explaining these
                issues on the inancial constraints/inability of the Solapur Municipal
                Corporation. This, apart from the facts as involved. The Court needs
                to be appraised to what can be the approach of the Municipal
                Corporation in such peculiar situation, also whether the Solapur
                Municipal Corporation would not have any funds to be borrowed
                from the State Government or any other sources for such public
                purpose. Further, would such approach and position as taken by the
                Solapur Municipal Corporation would not render the development
                plan reservations to be paper reservations, and on issuance of
                purchase notices by the owners of the land, all such reservations
                would stand lapsed/defeated. Is this the position that the Solapur
                Municipal Corporation ultimately intends to take.

                7.        The question would be if the Solapur Municipal
                Corporation is unable to acquire lands when reservations and if the
                same are of the nature that a purchase notice can be issued under
                Section 127 of the MRTP Act then necessarily the reservations is of
                no consequence and a situation of the Solapur Municipal
                Corporation abandoning the development plan reservations arises.

                8.        All these are issues of larger public interest which would
                be required to be explained by the Municipal Commissioner on
                aidavit. We accordingly adjourn the proceedings to 11th August,
                2025 (High on Board).

                9.          Once the views of the Municipal Commissioner are placed
                on record on such larger issues, we can proceed to pass appropriate
                orders. Albeit, the case of the Petitioner would stand on the
                applicability of the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, as
                already in this case, purchase notice was given on 4th February 2015
                and there was no acquisition of the said land within a stipulated



Patil-SR (ch)                                3 of 22
                                                                               wp 9166-23.doc


                period of Ten years resulting into lapsing of reservation being the
                contention of the Petitioner.

                10.        Let the aidavit of the Municipal Commissioner be iled
                within 10 days from today and be served on the Advocate for the
                Petitioner well in advance.

                11.      We request the learned Advocate General to appear in
                the present proceedings for the State-Government. Copy of the
                order be forwarded by Ms. Prabhune to the learned Advocate
                General.

                12.       We may also observe that the issue which we have
                underscored would be issue relevant to several Municipal
                Corporations, who are in such inancial situations as the Solapur
                Municipal Corporation.“




3.         The matter was thereafter listed before this Bench on 3 rd July

2026 and was argued by the parties. We also heard Dr. Milind Sathe,

learned Advocate General on behalf of the State with regard to the

above interlocutory order and the directions contained therein.

4.       Briely stated, land of the Petitioner bear CTS Nos. 224 and 226

nomenclatured as Final Plot No.79 and 77 admeasuring 21,300 sq. mtrs

and 38,600 sq. mtrs, part of T.P. Scheme No.III out of which suit property

which is subject matter of present writ petition is Final Plot No. 76/16

bearing CTS No. 224/15 admeasuring 5,656 sq. mtrs. Admittedly, by

registered sale deeds, the Petitioner purchased the aforesaid suit

property on 17th June 2010 and 21st June 2012 and is admittedly the

owner thereof. In the irst development plan for Solapur Municipal

Corporation 1977-97, the suit property was not reserved for any public

purpose.         On 22nd October 1992, gazette notiication notifying the




Patil-SR (ch)                               4 of 22
                                                         wp 9166-23.doc


intent of Corporation to revise the development plan under Section

23(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [for

short “MRTP Act”] was published. On 26th March 1999, the gazette

notiication publishing the draft revised development plan under

Section 26(1) of MRTP Act was published. On the same date, the draft

revised development plan published under Section 26 of the MRTP Act

showed the suit property being designated for and reserved for a

cultural centre. On 28th October 2004, the revised development plan

was sanctioned by the State Government with efect from 15 th

December 2004 with the excluded portion. The suit property forms part

of the excluded portion and not that of the development plan which

was sanctioned.   On 28th October 2004, a further notiication was

published with respect to the excluded portions out of which excluded

portion No.44, nomenclatured as Final Plot No.79/15, i.e., the suit

property was re-designated and shown as reserved for playground

along with additional area of inal plot No.79(Part) situated on the

western side of the original designated portion. On 21 st August 2008,

the notiication was published in the gazette sanctioning the excluded

portions including the suit property with efect from 15 th November

2008, the suit property being excluded portion No.44 was re-designated

as New Site No.7/38-PG. On 4th February 2015, the Petitioner gave

purchase notice under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act to Solapur Municipal


Patil-SR (ch)                  5 of 22
                                                                                     wp 9166-23.doc


Corporation with regard to the aforesaid EP-44, i.e., new Site No. 7/38.

On 16th February 2015, report of the Deputy Director of Town Planning

was submitted to the Corporation. On 16 th February 2015, the general

body of Solapur Municipal Corporation passed a resolution, being

Resolution No.58, to the efect that the Solapur Municipal Corporation

is not having the inancial wherewithal and condition to acquire the suit

property in response to the purchase notice given by the Petitioner. On

26th July 2018, the Petitioner sought building permission so as to use

the suit property for development. On 21st April 2019, the Corporation

rejected the application seeking building permission. Petition was iled

in February 2021 for the following reliefs :

                “(a)      This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that
                       (i)       the Reservation No.7/38 in the Final Development
                       Plan for 1997 to 2017 for the City of Solapur with respect to
                       Final Plot No. 79/15 i.e. Old City Survey No.224/15 of the
                       T.P.Scheme No. III of Solapur admeasuring 5,656.40 sq. mtrs.
                       [which property is mentioned as Final Plot No.79(p) in the
                       reservation sheet at Exhibit H (colly.) hereto] has lapsed
                       under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
                       Planning Act, 1966;
                       (ii)       Respondent No.1 is bound and liable to publish an
                       order in the Oicial Gazette in terms of Section 127(2) of the
                       MRTP Act thereby notifying de-reservation of the said
                       property described in prayer clause (a)(i) above;
                       (iii)       the letter dated 24.1.2019 (Exhibit S hereto) of the
                       Respondent Nos.2 and 3 rejecting the Petitioner's
                       application dated 26.7.2018 (Exhibit R hereto) seeking
                       permission, for development of the said property is per se
                       illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void ab-initio and liable to be set
                       aside.


                (b)    This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
                mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
                appropriate Writ, order, direction thereby:



Patil-SR (ch)                                  6 of 22
                                                                        wp 9166-23.doc


                (i)       commanding the Respondent No. 1 to publish an
                order in the Oicial Gazette in terms of Section 127(2) of
                the MRTP Act for notifying de-reservation of the said
                property [described in prayer clause (a)(i) above] from the
                Reservation No.7/38 in the Sanctioned Final Development
                Plan for 1997 to 2017;
                (ii)      commanding the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to
                withdraw, rescind and cancel the letter dated 24.1.2019
                (Exhibit-S hereto) and allow development of the said
                property [described prayer clause (a)(i) above] by granting
                all the necessary permissions and approvals as per the
                applicable laws;
                (iii)      commanding the Respondents not to include,
                notify or reserve the said property [described prayer clause
                (a)(i) above] for any public purpose whatsoever in any of
                the future draft/revised Development Plans for Solapur
                and/or sanction the same under the MRTP Act.”



5.       Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the Petitioner would contend that the statutory period of 10 years

within which the the Respondent-Corporation was required to acquire

the suit property from the date of sanction of development plan, which

came into force on 15th December 2004, came to end on 14th December

2014 and therefore under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act, purchase notice

dated 4th February 2015 issued by the Petitioner has not been acted

upon by the Respondents. He would submit that the Respondent –

Solapur Municipal Corporation failed to acquire the suit property within

a period of 2 years from the date of service of purchase notice and,

therefore, consequently on and from February 2017, the subject

reservation of playground for new Site No.7-38-PG is deemed to have

lapsed and the suit property is deemed to be de-reserved by operation




Patil-SR (ch)                        7 of 22
                                                            wp 9166-23.doc


of law under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act. He would submit that in that

view of the matter, the State is bound and liable to issue notiication

with regard to such lapsing of reservation by duly passing and

publishing the appropriate order as contemplated under the provisions

of Section 127(2) of MRTP Act and hence the present petition.

6.       Next, he would vehemently submit that after receipt of the

purchase notice dated 4th February 2015, the Respondent No. 2 passed a

resolution bearing Resolution No.58 dated 16 th February 2015 which

stated that the Corporation was not in a inancial position to acquire the

said property. He would further submit that the Petitioner received the

communicated dated 25th July 2015 from the Solapur Municipal

Corporation reiterating and maintaining the same position as per the

resolution passed by Corporation. He would submit that inability of the

Respondent-Corporation to acquire the suit property reserved for a

public purpose for want of inancial resources within the statutorily

stipulated period as contemplated by Section 127 of MRTP Act has been

admitted and once the land is not acquired as ordained by the said

provision, by operation of law the reservation have to be held as lapsed.

He would submit that the suit property belonging to the Petitioner

cannot be kept under reservation or a cloud of reservation indeinitely

without the acquiring body / Municipal Corporation taking any steps to

acquire the same for designated and reserved public purpose of


Patil-SR (ch)                   8 of 22
                                                          wp 9166-23.doc


playground. He would submit that the Petitioner’s case in the present

case satisies all legal parameters and therefore rejection of the

Petitioner’s application seeking development of the suit property in

such circumstances is arbitrary and illegal. He would submit that once

the Municipal Corporation has taken an unequivocal and clear stand by

passing Resolution No.58 dated 16 th April 2015, now the Corporation is

estopped from contending that suit property is still under reservation

for playground under the provisions of MRTP Act and the Petitioner

cannot develop the same. He would therefore persuade the Court to

quash and set aside the Corporation’s letter dated 24 th January 2019

rejecting the Petitioner’s application dated 26 th July 2018 seeking

permission for development of the suit property. He would persuade us

to apply the provisions of Section 127 of MRTP Act to the facts of the

Petitioner’s case and plead that once the Petitioner’s property is not

acquired within a period of 24 months from the date of service of

purchase notice by the owner or by any person interested, the same

stands lapsed under the scheme of Section 127 of MRTP Act and the

Petitioner be permitted to use the suit property for residential or

commercial use according to the development of adjacent lands. He

wold submit that once the owner of the land under reservation is not

provided with compensation within the statutorily stipulated period of

24 months after the receipt of purchase notice, the reservation


Patil-SR (ch)                  9 of 22
                                                            wp 9166-23.doc


automatically lapses. He would submit that the timeline in the present

case prima facie suggests that the Petitioner’s suit property has been

kept under a cloud of reservation without acquisition and that too

without any authority of law which is in violation of Article 300A of the

Constitution of India as also afects the Petitioner’s fundamental right

to carry on business as guaranteed under Article 19(g)(1) of the

Constitution of India. Hence, he would persuade the Court to allow the

petition.

7.       Per contra Mr. Bodake, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the Respondent-Solapur Municipal Corporation, which is the acquiring

body in the present case, would attempt to justify the delay in acquiring

the suit property and draw our attention to aidavit-in-reply dated 5 th

March 2021 iled by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Solapur

Municipal Corporation, copy of which is appended at Page No.126 to the

petition. At the outset, he would fairly and candidly submit that after

receipt of purchase notice dated 4th February 2015, the Solapur

Municipal Corporation placed proposal before the general body of

Solapur Municipal Corporation to acquire the suit property and to make

provision for release of compensation of approximately Rs.3.91 crore,

however, due to unsound economic condition, the said subject was

disposed of by passing Resolution No.58 by the general body of Solapur

Municipal Corporation.


Patil-SR (ch)                   10 of 22
                                                                           wp 9166-23.doc


8.       Another argument advanced by Mr. Bodake is that the efective

date of service of purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 under

Section 127 of MRTP Act in the present case is premature since the

sanctioned development plan 1997-2017 as per the notiication dated

28th October 2004 issued under Section 124 of MRTP Act came into

efect only from 15th November 2008. He would submit that excluded

portion No.44, which is the suit property, was sanctioned and reserved

as playground as per government notiication dated 15 th November

2008 and therefore the purchase notice dated 4 th February 2015 is

premature.

9.       Next, Mr. Bodake would draw our attention to the additional

aidavit-in-reply iled on behalf of the Respondent No.2, namely, the

Commissioner of Solapur Municipal Corporation dated 10 th August 2025

pursuant to the aforesaid order and contend that notwithstanding the

fact that Resolution No.58 was passed by the Respondent-Corporation

due to the unsound inancial condition of Corporation, under Rule 11(1)

of UDCPR, the Petitioner was persuaded to accept FSI and TDR

accommodation reservation in lieu of compensation. In Paragraph No.7

and 8 of the said aidavit-in-reply, following further reasons and steps

taken by the Solapur Municipal Corporation have been stated:

                “7.      I say that the general body of the solapur municipal
                corporation has passed resolution No.16 dated 24.04.25 thereby
                resolved to incur the contribution in the various development
                schemes and work is to be implemented by the central govt., state



Patil-SR (ch)                             11 of 22
                                                                               wp 9166-23.doc


                govt. and local planning committees schemes like water supply,
                severege, electricity, roads etc. for which the municipal corporation
                has already deposited an amount of Rs.100,09,52,362/- and
                remaining amount required to deposit is an amount of
                Rs.552,37,70,813/-. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "R-2" is
                the copy of general body resolution No.16 and standing committee
                resolution No. 13 dated 24.04.2025.

                8.       I say that apart from the above said development schemes,
                municipal corporations required to incur funds towards payment of
                diference of 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission and against leave
                encashment and commutation of pension to its employees which
                comes approx. amount of Rs. 200 crores for which budgetary
                provision required to be make by municipal corporation. I say that
                yearly revenue collection of Solapur Municipal Corporation is
                approx. Rs.200 to 250 crores, at the same time corporation is
                required to make the budgetary provision for essential services is
                approx. Rs.500 crores.”



10.      In view of the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Bodake would submit that as

enumerated in Rule 11.1 and 11.2 of UDCPR, appropriate directions be

passed to the Petitioner to accept the compensation in the manner of

TDR / FSI and accommodation reservation and the Corporation be

allowed to develop the suit property for the designated reservation. In

support of his submission, Mr. Bodake would rely upon the decisions of

this Court in the case of Aminabee Abdul Wahab Malik vs. State of

Maharashtra1 and Vishwas Bajirao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra2.

11.      The submissions advanced by learned Advocates have received

due consideration.

12.      Insofar as the present case is concerned, in the draft development

plan sanctioned by the State Government vide notiication dated 28 th

October 2004, copy of which is appended at Exhibit-“G” (Page No.36) to
1     2019(2) ALL MR 562.
2     2020(1) ALL MR 498 (F.B.).


Patil-SR (ch)                              12 of 22
                                                              wp 9166-23.doc


the petition, the suit property is shown as Site No.7/38, being reserved

for the cultural centre. This draft development plan was notiied by the

State Government on 28th October 2004 and it categorically refers to

the draft development plan notiied on 26th March 1999. It is seen that

by virtue of this notiication, the State Government after making

appropriate enquiries, decided to sanction the development plan with

modiications, some of which were substantial in nature and which were

required to be published under Section 31 of the MRTP Act and

therefore such modiications were included in the excluded portions,

namely, EP-1 to EP-101. It is seen that the State Government by another

notiication issued on the same day, i.e., on 28 th October 2004 notiied

the proposed modiications which were of substantial character in

excluded portions, namely, EP-1 to EP-101 in Schedule-II of the said

notiication. In the said Schedule-II, which is in the form of a table, it is

prima facie seen that the suit property is shown at Serial No.44 and is

designated as EP-44, i.e., Excluded Portion-44. The said entry shows

that the said EP-44 was earlier designated as cultural center under Site

No.7/38 and the designation was proposed to be modiied to a

playground after adding the adjacent land to the west of said Site

No.7/38.        Thus, it is clear that the suit property was reserved /

designated for the cultural centre at Site No.7/38 in the draft

development plan irst published on 26th March 1999 and which was


Patil-SR (ch)                     13 of 22
                                                             wp 9166-23.doc


sanctioned on 28th October 2004 with modiication. Once this is the

situation and position, it would be diicult for us to accept the

submissions made by Mr. Bodake that notice will have to be taken about

the suggestions and objections received and heard by the Deputy

Director of Town Planning, Pune Division, Pune of the proposed

modiications and the report submitted to the Government on 21 st May

2006 and the date will have to be advanced beyond 28 th October 2004.

The submission and argument advanced by Mr. Bodake is to the efect

that pursuant to the aforesaid, the State Government vide notiication

dated 7th August 2008, issued through the Urban Development

Department extended the period for sanctioning the said excluded

portion of the development plan for a further period upto 15 th

November 2008, as the said development plan was not sanctioned

within 1 year from the date of its receipt under Sub-Section (1) of

Section 31 of the MRTP Act. Therefore, Mr. Bodake would contend that

once this was the position, then the Government Notiication dated 21 st

August 2008 which was ultimately published in the Government Gazette

on 28th September 2008, came into force with efect from 15 th

November 2008 and that should be the date which should be

considered as the inal date of coming into force of the sanctioned

development plan. If Mr. Bodake’s submissions is to be accepted, then,

in that case purchase notice given by the Petitioner on 5 th February 2015


Patil-SR (ch)                   14 of 22
                                                             wp 9166-23.doc


would be considered to be given within 10 years and therefore it would

be contrary to the provisions of Section 127 of MRTP Act. However, in

the facts and circumstances of the present case, such is not the position.

It is seen that the sanctioned amended development plan/scheme for

the period 1997-2017 with regard to the Final Plot No.79(p) as per the

approved development plan reservation qua the suit property was

shown as cultural center reservation for site No.7/38. It is seen that the

said reservation was changed as per the excluded portion, i.e., EP-44 to

the west side of said Site No.7/38 and the same was published as

sanctioned development plan partly, vide notiication dated 28 th

October 2004. In that view of the matter, we hold that the purchase

notice dated 5th February 2015 given by the Petitioner to the Solapur

Municipal Corporation in respect of reservation of Site No.7/38 has

been correctly given and it is not premature.

13.      That apart, the conduct of Solapur Municipal Corporation in

placing the proposal for consideration of the General Body of

Corporation for acquisition of the suit property and to make provision

for payment of compensation being rejected by the General Body due

to unsound economic condition of the Corporation also needs to be

considered in the present case. The Respondents, namely, the acquiring

body cannot play hot and cold. On the one hand, it is the case of

Solapur Municipal Corporation that it is not in a position to acquire the


Patil-SR (ch)                   15 of 22
                                                                               wp 9166-23.doc


suit property and make provision for payment of compensation in

accordance with law and has taken a conscious decision accordingly and

on the other hand the case of the Petitioner is vehemently objected to.

14.      In the aidavit-in-reply iled by the Assistant Director of Town

Planning, Solapur Municipal Corporation in paragraph No.11, the

following submissions are made :

                “11.       …………. I say that as stated herein above the efective
                date of the sanctioned development plan for 1997-2017 as per the
                Notiication dated 28.10.2004 issued u/sec. 31 of the MRTP Act 1966
                and the Petitioner has served the purchase notice dated 04.02.2015
                u/sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966, however, the efective date is from
                15.11.2008 and hence the purchase notice is premature. I say that as
                per EP-44 sanctioned as on TPS-1707/8018/CR-709/07-UD/13 dated
                12.08.2008 dated 15.11.2008 hence the Petitioner’s purchase notice
                dated 04.02.2015 served u/sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966 is before
                completion of the 10 years pereiod and therefore the same is
                premature…………………………….”



15.      The aforesaid contention of the Solapur Municipal Corporation

cannot be accepted for more than one reason. It needs to be noted that

the subject property was reserved for the public purpose of cultural

centre under the development plan submitted by Solapur Municipal

Corporation and sanctioned by the State Government vide Notiication

No. TPS-1701/2735/CR-41/2003/UD/13 dated 28th October 2004 issued

under Section 31 of the MRTP Act vide Reservation No. 7/38. At that

time, the Government had excluded certain parts from the said

sanctioned inal development plan, nomenclatured as Excluded Portion

Nos.1 to 101, i.e. EP-1 to EP-101. Later on, by issuing virtue Notiication

No. TPS- 1707/818/CR-709/07/UD-13 dated 21st August 2008 under


Patil-SR (ch)                              16 of 22
                                                            wp 9166-23.doc


Section 31 of the MRTP Act, the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned

the Excluded Portions-1 to 101, i.e. EP-1 to EP-101. Thus, the Excluded

Portions of the said Final Development Plan bearing Nos. EP-1 to EP-101

were assimilated, subsumed and merged into the said Final

Development Plan for the period 1997-2017.        By virtue of the said

sanctioned EP-44, the original reservation of cultural centre on the suit

property alongwith an adjacent property was re-designated as

playground under Site Reservation No.7/38. The said adjacent property

was reserved for playground for the irst time under EP-44 vide

notiication dated 21st August 2008. Therefore, the statutory period of

10 years within which timeframe the Solapur Municipal Corporation was

required to acquire the said property from the date of sanctioned

development plan, which came into force on 15 th December 2004, came

to an end on 14th December 2014 as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 127

of the MRTP Act.     The Petitioner has, therefore, rightly issued the

purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 in terms of Section 127(1) of

the MRTP Act to the Respondent-Corporation thereby calling upon the

Respondent-Corporation to acquire the said property. However, the

Respondent-Corporation failed to acquire the said property within a

period of 2 years from the date of service of purchase notice dated 4 th

February 2015. One more factor which needs to be noted is that in fact,

the General Body of Solapur Municipal Corporation vide its Resolution


Patil-SR (ch)                  17 of 22
                                                              wp 9166-23.doc


No.58 dated 16th February 2015 discussed the purchase notice dated 4th

February 2015 given by the Petitioner and has clearly admitted therein

that it was necessary to acquire the said property within 10 years from

the date of sanctioned development plan, failing which the reservation

would lapse. As can be seen from the said resolution, the Respondent-

Corporation has admitted and resolved that it was not in a position to

acquire the said property in view of the unsound inancial position of

the Corporation.

16.      All that we can say is that the property of the citizen cannot be

locked or frozen indeinitely on account of it being reserved and

designated for a public purpose. That is the precise reason as to why

the provision of Section 127 of MRTP Act appears on the statute book.

In any event, we would like to reiterate that the tenure of a

development plan under the provisions of Section 22 of MRTP Act is 20

years. It is observed on several occasions that substantial time is lost in

issuing the draft development plan, considering the objections and

suggestions received thereafter and for issuance of the inal

development plan. In this process, the substantive right of the owner of

property whose property is reserved for a public purpose gets afected

and is completely frozen. Such owner of the land is unable to use his

land for any development activity. In that view of the matter, the right

of the citizens, such as the Petitioner before us, who issues the purchase


Patil-SR (ch)                    18 of 22
                                                              wp 9166-23.doc


notice will have to be construed strictly in accordance with the

provisions of Section 127 of MRTP Act.

17.      We are of the opinion that the ofer made by the Respondent-

Corporation that the Petitioner should accept the FSI/TDR and

accommodation reservation in lieu of payment of compensation cannot

be thrust upon the Petitioner. The provisions of Section 127 of MRTP

Act prima facie contemplate acquisition of the Petitioner’s land and if

the said land is not acquired within the statutorily stipulated timeframe

of 24 months in accordance with law, then, the acquisition will be

deemed to have lapsed.        There is no room for introduction of any

alternate form of compensation or payment in terms of FSI/TDR or

accommodation reservation contemplated under the provisions of

MRTP Act unless the owner agrees by mutual consent.

18.      The Petitioner’s land having been reserved in the irst instance in

the year 1999 for efecting the development plan for the period 1997-

2017, has already stood frozen from the year 1999 itself. The inal

development plan is sanctioned on 28th October 2004. Therefore, the

submission made by Solapur Municipal Corporation that the efective

date of 10 years would commence from the year 2008 in the facts and

circumstances of the present case which are alluded to hereinabove

cannot be accepted. Hence, we are unable to accept the submissions

advanced by Mr. Bodake for determining that the purchase notice


Patil-SR (ch)                     19 of 22
                                                              wp 9166-23.doc


issued by the Petitioner in the year 2015 is premature on the basis of

notiication issued by the State Government in the year 2008

sanctioning EP-1 to EP-101. The primary notiication in the present case

which will govern the ield is the notiication dated 28 th August 2004

whereby the revised development plan came to be sanctioned by the

State Government with efect from 15th December 2004 with the

excluded portion, namely, EP-44.

19.      Mr. Bodake has also drawn our attention to the aidavit-in-reply

dated 10th August 2025 while answering the question posed by this

Court vide order dated 28 th July 2025. All that the Corporation has

stated is that in view of the several development schemes, the

Corporation is required to incur expenses towards various development

schemes introduced by the Central Government, State Government and

local planning committees, such as water supply, sewerage, electricity,

roads etc. It further states that the Corporation is also required to incur

expenses towards the payment of diference of arrears of employees

concerning the 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission and against the leave

encashment and commutation of pension to its employees which comes

to approximate amount of Rs.200 crores. It also states that the yearly

revenue collection of Solapur Municipal Corporation is approximately

Rs.200 to 250 crores, and at the same time the Respondent-Corporation

is required to make the budgetary provision for essential services which


Patil-SR (ch)                    20 of 22
                                                                                     wp 9166-23.doc


is approximately to the tune of Rs.500 crores.                                We cannot take

cognizance of these issues raised by the Corporation in regard to the

Petitioner’s case before us.

20.      In view of our above observations and indings, the petition

stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read thus :

                “(a)      This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that
                       (i)       the Reservation No.7/38 in the Final Development
                       Plan for 1997 to 2017 for the City of Solapur with respect to
                       Final Plot No. 79/15 i.e. Old City Survey No.224/15 of the
                       T.P.Scheme No. III of Solapur admeasuring 5,656.40 sq. mtrs.
                       [which property is mentioned as Final Plot No.79(p) in the
                       reservation sheet at Exhibit H (colly.) hereto] has lapsed
                       under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
                       Planning Act, 1966;
                       (ii)       Respondent No.1 is bound and liable to publish an
                       order in the Oicial Gazette in terms of Section 127(2) of the
                       MRTP Act thereby notifying de-reservation of the said
                       property described in prayer clause (a)(i) above;
                       (iii)       the letter dated 24.1.2019 (Exhibit S hereto) of the
                       Respondent Nos.2 and 3 rejecting the Petitioner's
                       application dated 26.7.2018 (Exhibit R hereto) seeking
                       permission, for development of the said property is per se
                       illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void ab-initio and liable to be set
                       aside.


                (b)    This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
                mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
                appropriate Writ, order, direction thereby:
                        (i)       commanding the Respondent No. 1 to publish an
                        order in the Oicial Gazette in terms of Section 127(2) of
                        the MRTP Act for notifying de-reservation of the said
                        property [described in prayer clause (a)(i) above] from the
                        Reservation No.7/38 in the Sanctioned Final Development
                        Plan for 1997 to 2017;
                        (ii)      commanding the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to
                        withdraw, rescind and cancel the letter dated 24.1.2019
                        (Exhibit-S hereto) and allow development of the said
                        property [described prayer clause (a)(i) above] by granting


Patil-SR (ch)                                  21 of 22
                                                                         wp 9166-23.doc


                 all the necessary permissions and approvals as per the
                 applicable laws;
                 (iii)      commanding the Respondents not to include,
                 notify or reserve the said property [described prayer clause
                 (a)(i) above] for any public purpose whatsoever in any of
                 the future draft/revised Development Plans for Solapur
                 and/or sanction the same under the MRTP Act.”


21.      Needless to state that the Petitioner shall be entitled to use the

suit property in terms of the use of adjacent lands in accordance with

law.



[Nandesh S. Deshpande J.]                                  [Milind N. Jadhav, J.]

22.      After the judgment was pronounced, Mr. Bhosale, learned

Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Corporation persuades the

Court to stay the efect and operation of this judgment in order to

enable the Respondent-Corporation to test its validity and legality

before the Supreme Court.

23.      We have duly considered the request made by Mr. Bhosale.

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present

case, as also the timeline involved, we are not inclined to grant the said

request. The prayer for stay the efect and operation of this judgment

is accordingly rejected.



[Nandesh S. Deshpande J.]                                  [Milind N. Jadhav, J.]




Patil-SR (ch)                         22 of 22