PRAKASH R. GUPTAversusLONAVALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.

                                        [2008) 16 S.C.R. 1067


               -\                       PRAKASH R. GUPTA                             A
                                                  v.
                            LONAVALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.
                              · · (Civil Appeal No. 7801 of 2002)
                                       DECEMBER 2, 2008
                                                                                     8,

...            1
                         [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

                        MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING
                    ACT, 1966:
                                                                                     c
                        s. 127 - Lapsing of reservation - Land not acquired within
                     10 years of final regional plan/final development plan coming
                    into force - No steps taken for acquisition of land within six
                    months of the service of notice by the land owner - HELD:
                     The reservation having lapsed, land has to be released in       D
                    favour of the land owner - Reference to s. 49 by High Court
         )·         was totally misconceived and uncalled for- Judgment of High
"'                  Court set aside - Land in question shall be released forthwith
                    in favour of land owner.

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.              E
                    7801 of 2002.

                        From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.2001 of the High
                    Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2945 of
                    2001.                                                            F
       ....
                         R.F. Nariman, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Rahul Joshi, Brijkishor
                    Sah, Lenin S. Hijam, Pramji Paul, Aparajita Singh (for V N.
                    Raghupathy) Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad, Chirag S. Dave,
                    Satya Vikram, Sameer Abhyankar (for M/s. J.S. Wad & Co.)
                    and Sanjay V. Kharde (for Asha G. Nair) for the appearing        G
    .. ,,...        parties .
~
                        The following Order of the Court delivered:

                                                1067                                 H
    1068     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2008) 16 S.C.R.


A                              ORDER
                                                                      ;.
        1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

      2. This appeal has been filed c.lgainst the impugneo
  judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, dated 9th
B November, 2001. The detailed facts are given in the impugned
  judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to
  repeat the same here except where necessary for deciding the
  appeal.
                                                                      r-    ..
                                                                            .       '
                                                                                    t

c      3. The appellant is the owner of the land in gispute. His
  land was reserved under a development plan for ~ certain
  college but that college got disaffiliated, Thereafter, a minor                   ..
  modification under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and
  Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short, 'the Act') was issued and it
D was said to be allotted to the present respondent No.3.
         4. However, it appears that the land was not acquired
    within the ten year period mentioned in Section 127 of the         _,
    aforesaid Act. Section 127 states as under:                             :'
                                                                                '

E       "Lapsing of reservations

              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
F
        comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of
        such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act,
        1894, are not commenced within such period, the owner
        or any person interested in the land may serve notice on
        the Planning Authority, Development Authority or as the
G       case may be, Appropriate Authority to that effect; arid if
        within six 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,
H       and thereupon the land shall he deemed to be released
            PRAKASH R. GUPTA v. LONAVALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 1069
                                 & ORS.

     ·--\          from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall    A
                   become available to the owner for the purpose of
                   development as otherwise, permissible in the case of
                   adjacent land under the relevant plan."

                 5. It is not disputed that the land was not acquired within    B
            ten years from the date on which the final Regional plan or final
            Development plan came into force and no proceedings for
',   i
            acquisition of such land under the Land Acquisition Act were
            commenced within the aforesaid period of ten years. After the
            said period of teri years, the appellant, who was the owner of
                                                                                C'
            the land, served a notice on respondent No.1 as required by
            Section 127 calling upon the said authority to acquire the said
            land within six months or take steps within that period, but
            neither was the land acquired within the further period of six
            months nor were any steps taken to acquire it. Hence, in our
            opinion, the reservation lapsed and the land has to be released     D
            in favour of the appellant.
     t
                 6. The High Court, however, has taken the view that in view
            of Section 49 of the Act, there is no lapse of the reservation.
            We do not agree. In our opinion, the scheme contemplated by         E
            Section 49 is totally different from that contemplated by Section
            127. In Section 49, there is no period of ten years as mentioned
            in Section 127. In Section 49, the owner has to satisfy one of
            the three conditions mentioned therein which is not so in
            Section 127. Thus, reference to Section 49 by the High Court        F
            was, in our opinion, totally misconceived and uncalled for.

                 7. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside
            the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct that the
            land in question shall be released forthwith in favour of the
            appellant.                                                          G

·.• J·             8. No order as to costs.

            R.P.                                           Appeal allowed.