Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arose from a dispute over reservation of land in the Nashik Municipal Corporation area. The petitioners, owners of agricultural land bearing Survey No.7A (part) Hissa No.4A at village Chehedi Budruk, challenged the continued reservation of their land in the final development plan for Nashik City. The land, measuring about 16,000 sq. mtrs., was originally reserved for 'High School and Primary School' under Reservation No.143 in the development plan published in parts between 1993 and 1996. The petitioners served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on 3 March 2014, alleging that the Nashik Municipal Corporation had failed to acquire the land for over two decades. The Assistant Director of Town Planning acknowledged the notice and sought ownership documents, while offering TDR compensation, which the petitioners declined on 11 April 2014. The statutory period of 12 months expired on 3 March 2015 without acquisition steps, and the petitioners intimated lapsing of reservation. The NMC wrote to the Collector on 22 December 2014, but the Collector returned the proposal on 17 April 2015, and on 27 May 2015 the ADTP informed the petitioners that the proposal was rejected. Petitioners sent reminders in 2015 and 2023, but no notification of lapsing was issued, leading to filing of the writ petition on 19 June 2023. The core legal issues were whether the reservation lapsed under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act due to non-acquisition within 12 months; whether the purchase notice was invalid for not enclosing documents; and whether fresh reservations in a revised development plan could revive the reservation. Petitioners argued that no steps were taken for acquisition, relying on Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, which requires declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the statutory period. They also contended that fresh reservations Nos. 473 and 474 in the revised plan notified on 9 January 2017 could not continue the reservation. The NMC responded by citing measurement efforts from 2016 onwards, but its counsel conceded that the facts were identical to those in Damu Vaman Mogal v. Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development, where the court had declared lapsing and the Supreme Court had rejected the SLP. The court found that no steps were taken to acquire the land until filing of the petition in 2023, and the 12-month period expired without action. It rejected the defect-in-notice argument, following Popat Kisan Maske, and held that non-submission of documents does not invalidate the purchase notice. It further held that fresh reservation cannot defeat accrued statutory rights, applying Godrej and Boyce and Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, declared that the reservation on the writ land lapsed under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act, and directed the State Government to issue a notification declaring lapsing within three months, permitting the petitioners to develop the land in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Failure to Acquire within Statutory Period - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127(2) - Petitioners served purchase notice on 3 March 2014; no steps for acquisition were taken within 12 months as required; court found respondents failed to take necessary steps as per Girnar Traders; reservation on the writ land lapsed. Held that failure to publish declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within 12 months resulted in lapsing of reservation (Paras 9-10). B) Town Planning - Purchase Notice Validity - Non-Submission of Documents - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127 - Respondents contended purchase notice defective for not submitting ownership documents; court rejected this as afterthought; following Popat Kisan Maske, not submitting documents does not invalidate notice; also respondents did not seek documents during subsequent correspondence (Paras 10-11). C) Town Planning - Fresh Reservation in Revised Development Plan - Cannot Defeat Accrued Rights - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127(2) - Fresh reservation Nos. 473 and 474 in revised plan sanctioned on 9 February 2017 could not continue reservation after statutory lapsing; following Godrej and Boyce and Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave, accrued statutory right cannot be taken away by fresh reservation (Para 12). D) Constitutional Law - Writ Remedy - Directions for Lapsing Notification - Constitution of India, Article 226, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127(2) - Court granted writ petition and directed State Government to issue notification declaring lapsing of reservation within 3 months and permitted development in accordance with law (Paras 3, 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether reservation on the writ land lapsed under Section 127(2) of MRTP Act due to failure of NMC to take acquisition steps within 12 months of purchase notice; whether purchase notice was invalid for non-submission of documents; whether fresh reservation in revised development plan could continue the reservation after lapsing
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed. The court held that reservation on the writ land lapsed under Section 127(2) of MRTP Act upon failure to take acquisition steps within 12 months of purchase notice; the purchase notice was valid despite non-submission of documents; fresh reservation cannot defeat accrued rights; and directed State Government to issue notification declaring lapsing of reservation within 3 months and permitted development in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 127(2) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966
- lapsing of reservation
- purchase notice
- steps for acquisition include declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- non-submission of documents does not invalidate purchase notice
- fresh reservation cannot defeat accrued rights
