AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) Heard Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sagar Katkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Mr. D.P. Thakare, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 to 5/State.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
By the present petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the reservations affecting Survey No.61/3, admeasuring 00 H.46 R. and Survey No.62/4, admeasuring 00 H. 16 R. (out of 00 H. 25 R.), situated at Mouza Pimpalgaon (Mathankar), Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha, reserved under the sanctioned Development Plan of Hinganghat Town for D.P. Road and Garden, have lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “the MRTP Act”). A consequential direction is also sought to the State Government to publish the notification contemplated under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act.
The petitioner is the owner of Survey No.61/3 admeasuring 00 H.46 R. and Survey No.62/4 admeasuring 00 H.25 R., situated at Mouza Pimpalgaon (Mathankar), Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha (hereinafter referred to as “the aforesaid lands” for the sake of brevity). Under the sanctioned Development Plan of Hinganghat Town, which came into force on 15.06.2006, an area admeasuring 24R from Survey No.61/3 came to be reserved for D.P. Road and the remaining 22R for Garden Reservation No.60. Similarly, an area admeasuring 16R from Survey No.62/4 came to be reserved for D.P. Road. It is the petitioner’s case that despite expiry of more than ten years from the date of coming into force of the Development Plan, no acquisition proceedings were initiated in accordance with Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
The petitioner, therefore, issued two separate purchase notices dated 03.09.2021 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act in respect of the aforesaid lands, which is at record page Nos. 27 and 29 (Annexures P-1 and P-2). The notices were served upon all the respondents and were admittedly received by respondent No.1, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, on 07.09.2021. Along with the purchase notices, the petitioner furnished the relevant revenue documents including the 7/12 extracts, revenue map and the relevant extract of the Development Plan evidencing his ownership and the reservation affecting the subject lands.
The record further reveals that after receipt of the purchase notices, respondent No.1 called upon the petitioner from time to time to furnish copies of the notices and certain supporting documents. The petitioner responded to every communication and repeatedly supplied all documents sought by the Planning Authority. Respondent No.1 thereafter sought the petitioner’s option regarding the mode of acquisition, namely whether he desired Transferable Development Rights (TDR), accommodation reservation or acquisition by payment of compensation. The petitioner, by his communication dated 06.12.2022, opted for acquisition by regular land acquisition proceedings (Annexure P-10). Despite such continuous compliance on the part of the petitioner, no further statutory steps for acquisition were taken. Upon expiry of twenty-four months from the date of service of the purchase notices, the petitioner requested the respondents to issue the notification contemplated under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act. Since no action was taken, the present petition has been filed.
Respondent No.1, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, has opposed the petition by filing written submissions. It is contended that although resolutions had been passed by the Municipal Council and proposals for acquisition were forwarded to the District Collector, acquisition could not proceed in view of the communication issued by the Deputy Collector stating that administrative approval had not been granted and necessary funds had not been made available. It is further stated that no budgetary provision was made by the Municipal Council for acquisition of the subject lands during the relevant financial year.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents have taken the statutory steps contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act within the period prescribed under Section 127 so as to prevent the reservation from lapsing.
The issue is no longer res integra. Section 127 of the MRTP Act embodies a legislative balance between the power of the Planning Authority to reserve private land for a public purpose and the corresponding right of the landowner not to be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his property indefinitely. Where the land reserved in the Development Plan is not acquired within ten years from the date on which the Development Plan comes into force, the owner or any person interested in the land is entitled to serve a purchase notice. If within the statutory period prescribed after service of such notice the land is neither acquired nor are steps contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act commenced for its acquisition, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law and the land becomes available to the owner for development as otherwise permissible. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 3 SCC 1], has authoritatively explained the scheme of Section 127 in the following terms:
“133.However, in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified is not acquired by agreement within 10 years from the date on which final regional plan or final development plan comes into force or if declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act not published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner any person interested in the land may serve notice upon such authority to that effect and if within 12 months from the date of 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 and the land would become available the owner for the purposes of development. The defaults, their consequences and even exceptions thereto have been specifically stated in the State Act. For a period of 11 years, the land would remain under reservation or designation, as the case may be, in terms Section 127 of the MRTP Act (10 years + notice period).”
The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur vs. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and others [(2013) 5 SCC 627], wherein it has been held as under:
“42.We are further of the view that the majority in Girnar Traders (2) [Girnar Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555] had rightly observed that steps towards the acquisition would really commence when the State Government takes active steps for the acquisition of the particular piece of land which leads to publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Any other interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act will make the provisions wholly unworkable and leave the landowner at the mercy of the Planning Authority and the State Government.
43.The expression “no steps as aforesaid” used in Section 127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the context of the provisions of the 1894 Act and mere passing of a resolution by the Planning Authority or sending of a letter to the Collector or even the State Government cannot be treated as commencement of the proceedings for the acquisition of land under the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act. By enacting Sections 125 to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State Legislature has made a definite departure from the scheme of acquisition enshrined in the 1894 Act. But a holistic reading of these provisions makes it clear that while engrafting the substance of some of the provisions of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and leaving out other provisions, the State Legislature has ensured that the landowners/other interested persons, whose land is utilised for execution of the development plan/town planning scheme, etc., are not left high and dry. This is the reason why time-limit of ten years has been prescribed in Section 31(5) and also under Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act for the acquisition of land, with a stipulation that if the land is not acquired within six months of the service of notice under Section 127 or steps are not commenced for acquisition, reservation of the land will be deemed to have lapsed. Shri Naphade's interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127, if accepted, will lead to absurd results and the landowners will be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation. That would tantamount to depriving the citizens of their property without the sanction of law and would result in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”
Thus, the expression “steps” occurring in Section 127 refers only to the statutory steps contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. Mere passing of resolutions, forwarding of acquisition proposals or inter-departmental correspondence cannot be construed as commencement of acquisition proceedings so as to arrest the statutory consequence of lapsing under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the Development Plan came into force on 15.06.2006. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner served purchase notices under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 03.09.2021, which were admittedly received by respondent No.1 on 07.09.2021. The petitioner also furnished the revenue records, Development Plan extracts and other documents along with the notices. Even thereafter, whenever respondent No.1 sought additional documents or clarifications, the petitioner promptly complied with every communication addressed to him. The record further reveals that respondent No.1 subsequently called upon the petitioner to indicate whether he desired Transferable Development Rights, accommodation reservation or acquisition by payment of compensation, to which the petitioner unequivocally expressed his preference for acquisition by regular land acquisition proceedings.
Having acted upon the purchase notices in the aforesaid manner, respondent No.1 cannot now contend that the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. More importantly, despite repeated correspondence extending over a considerable period, the respondents have failed to place on record any material demonstrating that a declaration under Section 126(2) or Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act came to be issued or that acquisition proceedings, in the manner contemplated by law, were commenced within the statutory period. On the contrary, respondent No.1 has candidly admitted that although resolutions were passed and proposals were forwarded to the District Collector, acquisition could not proceed on account of want of administrative approval, absence of financial sanction and lack of budgetary provision.
The aforesaid defence is wholly untenable in view of the settled legal position. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) (supra) and Shrirampur Municipal Council (supra), the statutory expression “steps” under Section 127 of the MRTP Act does proposals forwarded by the Planning Authority. Equally, financial constraints, absence of budgetary allocation or want of administrative approval cannot postpone or defeat the statutory consequence expressly provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Once the Planning Authority fails to commence acquisition in the manner prescribed under Section 126 of the MRTP Act within the stipulated period, the reservation lapses by operation of law irrespective of the reasons assigned for such failure.
In the present case, it is an admitted position that despite service of the purchase notices, the respondents neither acquired the subject lands nor commenced acquisition proceedings in accordance with Section 126 of the MRTP Act within the statutory period prescribed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The respondent’s own pleadings establish that, at the highest, acquisition proposals were forwarded to the Collector and that acquisition could not proceed due to want of administrative approval and financial provision. Such circumstances, however, do not arrest the statutory consequence contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The reservation affecting the petitioner’s lands, therefore, stood lapsed by operation of law upon expiry of the statutory period.
The material events emerging from the record may be conveniently summarized as under:
| Relevant Event | Date / Position |
| Development Plan came into force | 15.06.2006 |
| Expiry of ten-year period under Section 127 | 15.06.2016 |
| Purchase notices issued by the petitioner | 03.09.2021 |
| Purchase notices received by respondent No.1 | 07.09.2021 |
| Expiry of statutory period under Section 127 | 07.09.2023 |
| Declaration under Section 126(2)/(4) | Not issued |
| Acquisition proceedings under Section 126 | Not commenced |
| Notification under Section 127(2) | Not issued |
The aforesaid chronology unmistakably demonstrates that all statutory preconditions contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act stood fulfilled. The respondents failed to commence acquisition proceedings in the manner known to law within the prescribed period despite receipt of the purchase notices. Consequently, the reservation affecting Survey No.61/3 and Survey No.62/4 stood lapsed by operation of law, and the petitioner became entitled to have the lands released from reservation and to seek publication of the notification contemplated under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
It is declared that the reservations affecting Survey No.61/3, admeasuring 00 H. 46 R., and Survey No.62/4, to the extent reserved under the sanctioned Development Plan of Hinganghat Town for D.P. Road and Garden, have lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
Respondent No.5 – State Government shall publish the notification contemplated under Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, recording the lapsing of the aforesaid reservations, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.