Reliance on a notification prior to legislative amendment is misplaced once the statute is amended — Amended statutory period applicable from the date of notice issuance — Premature petitions are not maintainable. (Paras 5 to 8)

The Court held that the amended 24-month period applied as per the law effective from 29th August 2015 and not the six-month period from the earlier provision. The Petition was deemed premature and was accordingly dismissed.

Acts and Sections Discussed —

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Article 226.

2. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP) — Section 127.

Subjects — Writ of Certiorari — Writ of Mandamus — Land Reservation — Purchase Notice — Statutory Limitation — Legislative Amendment.

Nature of Litigation — Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the reservation of a playground on the Petitioners’ land had lapsed due to inaction by Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and further seeking a direction to allow development of the said land.

Relief Sought — a) Declaration of lapse of reservation due to inaction over 10 years and beyond the six-month period following purchase notice. b) Direction to declare the subject land available for development by the Petitioners.

Reason for Filing the Case — The Petitioners claimed that the PMC failed to initiate acquisition proceedings within the statutory period after purchase notice, resulting in the lapse of reservation.

Decisions Until Now — The Respondents passed a resolution to initiate acquisition within the statutory limitation and forwarded a proposal to the District Collector for the same.

Issues — Whether the amended period of “twenty-four months” under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, effective from 29th August 2015, applies to the present case where the reservation notification was issued on 5th March 2012.

Submissions/Arguments —

For the Petitioners — a) Argued that the six-month period under the unamended Section 127 should apply since the reservation was sanctioned on 5th March 2012. b) Cited precedent in Shri Shankar Newandram Budhwani v/s The Chief Officer.

For the Respondents — a) Contended that the Petition was premature as the Corporation had already initiated the acquisition process through a resolution and subsequent proposal to the District Collector. b) Emphasized that the 24-month period under the amended law applied, making the Petition filed before the expiration of this period premature.