Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of land bearing Gat No. 105/2+3 at Village Bale, Solapur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the reservations (Nos. 11/53 and 11/54) on their property for primary school and high school had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The land, originally agricultural, was included in the municipal limits of Solapur Municipal Corporation. The Corporation, as the planning authority, published a development plan notice on 23rd March 1999, reserving portions of the land for school purposes. The development plan was sanctioned by the State on 28th October 2004 and came into effect from 15th December 2004. The petitioners obtained development permission and non-agricultural conversion in 2000. Since the Corporation did not acquire the land within 10 years from the date of the sanctioned plan, the petitioners issued a notice under Section 127(1) on 14th October 2019. The Corporation responded, claiming documents were missing and offering TDR/FSI as compensation, which the petitioners rejected, insisting on monetary compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Corporation did not initiate acquisition proceedings. The court found that the Corporation failed to take effective steps for acquisition within the statutory period. Relying on the proviso to Section 127(1), the court held that the reservation lapsed automatically. The court directed the State to publish a notification under Section 127(2) within 12 weeks, declaring the lapse. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Lapse of Reservation - Section 127 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Failure to Acquire Within 10 Years - The petitioners' land was reserved for primary school and high school in the sanctioned development plan of 2004. The planning authority did not take steps to acquire the land within 10 years from the date the plan came into effect. The petitioners issued a notice under Section 127(1) in 2019. The court held that the reservation lapsed by operation of law and directed the State to publish a notification under Section 127(2) (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reservation on the petitioners' property under the MRTP Act has lapsed due to the failure of the planning authority to acquire the land within the statutory period of 10 years from the date of the sanctioned development plan.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, declaring that the reservation on the suit property has lapsed. The State was directed to publish a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment.
Law Points
- Section 127 MRTP Act
- lapse of reservation
- failure to acquire within 10 years
- mandatory publication of notification
- compensation under L.A. Act 2013
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (2) 242
Civil Writ Petition No. 10618 of 2022
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata
Mr. Pradeep Salgar for Petitioners, Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 3-State, Mr. Samir Kumbhakoni a/w. Ms. Anjali Shaw & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for Respondent No.2
Babubhai Shankarlal Mehta, Giridharilal Shankarlal Mehta, Gulabidevi Babubhai Mehta, Nandadevi Mahavirkumar Mehta, Mehulkumar Khateshi Savla, Vimaladevi Ashokkumar Mehta, Shaileshkumar Khateshi Savla, Hulasidevi Giridharlal Mehta
State of Maharashtra, Solapur Municipal Corporation, Assistant Director of Town Planning, Solapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking declaration that reservation on property has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act and direction to publish notification.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring that Reservation Nos. 11/53 and 11/54 on their property have lapsed and directing the State to publish a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act.
Filing Reason
The planning authority (Solapur Municipal Corporation) failed to acquire the petitioners' land within 10 years from the date of the sanctioned development plan, despite a notice under Section 127(1).
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Director of Town Planning filed a reply dated 3rd April 2024, admitting most facts. The Corporation had offered TDR/FSI which the petitioners rejected.
Issues
Whether the reservation on the petitioners' property lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act due to non-acquisition within 10 years.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for publication of notification under Section 127(2).
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the planning authority did not take any effective steps for acquisition within 10 years from the date of the sanctioned plan (15th December 2004), and despite notice under Section 127(1), no acquisition proceedings were initiated.
Respondent No.2 (Corporation) contended that the petitioners did not submit required documents and that TDR/FSI was offered as compensation, which the petitioners refused.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, if land reserved for a public purpose is not acquired within 10 years from the date of the sanctioned development plan, the reservation lapses. The planning authority's failure to take effective steps for acquisition, despite a notice from the landowner, results in automatic lapse. The landowner is entitled to a declaration of lapse and a direction for publication of notification under Section 127(2).
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus ... declaring that the Reservation Nos. 11/53 and 11/54 imposed on the property of Petitioners ... has lapsed, as contemplated under the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
As the Respondent No.2 being Planning Authority did not take any effective steps in acquiring property of the Petitioners within a period of 10 years from the date of coming into effect the sanctioned plan as contemplated under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, the Petitioners issued a Notice dated 14th October 2019 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act on 14th October 2019. The Corporation responded on 22nd November 2019, requesting documents and offering TDR/FSI. The petitioners replied on 21st January 2020, rejecting TDR/FSI and demanding monetary compensation. Further correspondence ensued. The Corporation did not initiate acquisition. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on 10th August 2022. The Assistant Director of Town Planning filed a reply on 3rd April 2024. The court reserved judgment on 10th February 2025 and pronounced on 24th February 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 2(19), Section 26, Section 31, Section 44, Section 45, Section 127
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
