Ashok Pandharinath Kudal & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

JUDGMENT [PER : KISHORE C. SANT, J.] :-

The subject matter and point involved in both these petitions are the same. The respondents are also same. Therefore, these petitions are taken up together.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally.

The petitioners are the owners of their respective lands situated within the limits of Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation – respondent No.5. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the State and its Authorities. Respondent No.4 is an Assistant Director, Town Planing Department, Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation.

By way of the present petitions the petitioners are seeking declaration under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [for short “the MRTP Act”] that the reservation shown on the land of the petitioners is lapsed.

In Writ Petition No.3122 of 2026, the petitioners are the owners of land Survey No. 169/2/B, admeasuring 1 Hectare 90 R situated at Meharun, Taluka and District Jalgaon. For Jalgaon Municipal Corporation a final development plan (additional area) came to be sanctioned by the State Government on 11.02.2002. Said plan came into force from 07.04.2002. As per the development plan, the land of the petitioners is shown to be reserved under Reservation No. 157 for high school and by Reservation No. 158 the land was shown to be reserved for play ground. Though the final development plan was published in 2002, no steps were taken by the respondents and its Authorities to acquire the said lands. The earlier owners therefore issued notice on 25.08.2023 for purchase of the land to the respondents. The Planning Authority was called upon to acquire the land. The respondent-Corporation forwarded proposal to respondent No.2 to initiate the acquisition proceeding and to acquire the subject land. However, no effective steps were taken under the MRTP Act. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court.

In Writ Petition No. 3131 of 2026, the petitioners are the owners of land Survey No. 168/1 admeasuring 11.46 R and Survey No. 168/1/1 admeasuring 46.50 R situated at Meharun, Taluka and District Jalgaon. Said land also comes within the limits of respondent No.5 -Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation. A purchase notice was issued on 21.12.2023. Respondent No.5 called upon the petitioners to furnish measurement map and 7/12 extract of the land. Same was supplied on 07.05.2024. They also supplied copy of sale-deed. Thereafter, the respondents passed resolution and issued communication to the petitioners. In the communication they offered transferable development rights/reservation accommodation. The petitioners, however, refused to accept TDR and instead insisted for monetary compensation. As no effective steps are taken, the petitioners are before this Court.

Learned Counsel Mr. Tripathi for the petitioners vehemently submits that the final development plan was published in 2002. It was incumbent on the part of the respondent-Authorities to take effective steps within 10 years to acquire the land. Since no steps were taken, the owners were required to issue purchase notice to the respondents under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. No effective steps, however, taken though the proposal is forwarded to the appropriate authority by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. When no steps are taken, the only option remains with the Authorities is to declare that the reservation is lapsed. Inspite of this clear position, neither effective steps are taken nor it is declared that the reservation has lapsed.

So far as Writ Petition No. 3131 of 2026 is concerned, the respondent-Authority only offered TDR. He submits that when the petitioners are entitled to get declaration that the reservation is lapsed, it is the Authority either has to declare that the reservation is lapsed or to take steps to acquire the land by offering compensation to the petitioners. The respondent-Corporation cannot insist upon the owners to accept TDR. He submits that the petitioners have made out clear case to allow the petitions. He relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmiti Developers Through Its Partners and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, AIR 2025 SC (Civil) 1146.

Learned Advocate Mr. Munde for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the basis of an affidavit vehemently submits that so far as Writ Petition No. 3122 of 2026 is concerned, there is already a proposal forwarded to the Authorities for acquisition of the land. Thus, they have completed their part of taking steps towards acquisition. Further steps are to be taken by the State Government and its Authorities and it is not in the hands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In Writ Petition No. 3131 of 2026, he submits that offering of TDR clearly shows that the petitioners are compensated towards reservation of the land and in such circumstances the petitioners cannot insist upon lapsing of reservation. He opposes the petitions.

Learned AGPs for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 prays for passing appropriate order.

There is no dispute about the facts and the dates. The final development plan was published in 2002. It is admitted position that till 2023, no steps were taken to acquire the land. There is no denial of the fact of receipt of purchase notice sent by the petitioners. Except stating that the respondent-Corporation forwarded proposal so far as land in Writ Petition No. 3122 of 2026 is concerned and offering TDR so far as Writ Petition No. 3131 of 2026 is concerned, there is nothing on record. Merely forwarding proposal and offering TDR cannot be said to be steps taken towards acquisition of the lands. So far as submission in respect of offering TDR is concerned, this Court has already taken a view in many similar matters that offering TDR cannot be said to be a step towards acquisition of land. Merely sending of the proposal also cannot be said to be steps towards acquisition. When purchase notice is received, it is trite law that on failure to take steps inspite of notice, only effect under section 127 of the MRTP Act is that the reservation lapses.

In the case of Nirmiti Developers [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the principles underlying in section 127 of the MRTP Act. While discussing the underlying principles the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph No. 47 as under :-

. Thus, from reading of the above discussion, it is clear that when no steps are taken within the given timeline, there is no option but to utilise the land for the purpose as permissible under the Town Planning Act. The reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed if no steps are taken within the prescribed period.

Considering the arguments and the facts involved in the petitions, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioners have made out a case to allow the petitions.

Therefore, both the petitions are allowed. It is declared that the reservation on the lands of the petitioners stands lapsed. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) of both the petitions. Necessary notification be published in the official gazette within six months from today.

Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.