Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, an 82-year-old agriculturist and owner of land bearing Survey No.261/5B admeasuring 3300 sq. mtrs. situated at Malkapur Nagar Parishad, Taluka Karad, District Satara. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his development plan by the Chief Officer of Malkapur Municipal Council on the ground of reservation, even though the reservation on the land had allegedly lapsed due to non-acquisition. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, the Chief Officer, the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Satara Division, and the Directorate of Town Planning, Pune. The material facts show that the petitioner issued a purchase notice dated 26 April 2019 under Section 49(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Government of Maharashtra confirmed the purchase notice on 23 October 2019 under Section 49(4). Under Section 49(7), the appropriate authority was required to make an application to acquire the land under Section 126 within one year from the date of confirmation. That statutory period expired on 22 October 2020. No acquisition application was made. Despite this, the municipal council rejected the petitioner's development application by order dated 4 February 2021. A communication from the District Collector dated 1 June 2022 confirmed that no application for acquisition had been made. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Government of Maharashtra, which remained unheard for one and a half years. A report dated 4 July 2019 indicated that the organization for which the land was reserved, Santkrupa Swayam Sidh Mahila Bachat Ghat Sanstha, did not exist within the limits of the municipal council. The core legal issues were whether the reservation on the writ land lapsed under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act due to failure to acquire within one year of purchase notice confirmation; whether the rejection order dated 4 February 2021 was illegal and liable to be quashed; and whether the petitioner was entitled to develop the land and to a mandamus for consideration of building plans. The petitioner argued that the purchase notice was confirmed, the one-year period expired without any acquisition application, and therefore the reservation lapsed, making the rejection illegal. The State did not file a reply and was unable to dispute the purchase notice or lapse; it left the matter to the court's discretion. The Court analysed Section 49(7) and held that its plain meaning required the reservation, designation, allotment, indication or restriction on development to be deemed lapsed once the authority failed to acquire the land within one year. The land was then deemed released and available to the owner for development permissible for adjacent land under the relevant plan. The Court noted that by 4 February 2021, even the ground of designation had been deleted in view of the purchase notice, and the District Collector confirmed no acquisition application existed. The Court found the impugned order illegal and set it aside. The petitioner gave an undertaking to withdraw the appeal filed before the Government. In its final decision, the Court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). It quashed and set aside the order dated 4 February 2021, directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the building plans and grant sanction in accordance with law, and imposed exemplary costs of Rs.5 lakhs upon respondent No.2 for rejecting the plans on a non-existent ground and causing harassment. The petitioner was declared entitled to develop the writ land in accordance with law, and all concerned were directed to act on the authenticated copy of the order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner invoked Article 226 seeking writ of certiorari to quash order dated 4 February 2021 rejecting building plan and writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider and grant sanction. The High Court held the rejection illegal after statutory lapse of reservation and set aside the impugned order. Held that impugned order dated 4 February 2021 deserved to be set aside (Paras 1, 8-9). B) Urban Planning - Lapse of Reservation - Failure to Acquire After Purchase Notice Confirmation - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Sections 49(1), 49(4), 49(7), 126 - Purchase notice dated 26 April 2019 under Section 49(1) was confirmed on 23 October 2019 under Section 49(4). One-year period under Section 49(7) expired on 22 October 2020 without any acquisition application under Section 126. Held that reservation, designation, allotment, indication or restriction on development of land deemed lapsed and land released (Paras 3, 5-7). C) Urban Planning - Development Rights of Owner - Effect of Lapse on Usable Land - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 49(7) - Upon deemed lapse, land becomes available to owner for development otherwise permissible in case of adjacent land under relevant plan. Court held petitioner entitled to develop writ land in accordance with law (Paras 7, 10). D) Costs - Exemplary Costs - Harassment by Municipal Authority - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 49(7) read with Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought exemplary costs of Rs.5 lakhs against respondent No.2 for rejecting plans on non-existent ground causing harassment. The Court allowed prayer clause (c), thereby imposing exemplary costs of Rs.5 lakhs upon respondent No.2. Held that respondent No.2 rejected plans without any rhyme or reason causing unnecessary harassment (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether reservation on writ land lapsed under Section 49(7) MRTP Act due to failure of respondent No.2 to acquire within one year of purchase notice confirmation; whether impugned order dated 4 February 2021 rejecting development plan was illegal and liable to be quashed; whether petitioner entitled to develop land and to mandamus for consideration of building plans.
Final Decision
Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c); order dated 4 February 2021 set aside; respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to consider building plans and grant sanction in accordance with law; exemplary costs of Rs.5 lakhs imposed upon respondent No.2; petitioner entitled to develop writ land in accordance with law; petitioner to withdraw appeal as undertaking to court; all concerned to act on authenticated copy of order.
Law Points
- If appropriate authority fails to make an application to acquire land within one year from date of confirmation of purchase notice under Section 49(7) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966
- reservation
- designation
- allotment
- indication or restriction on development is deemed to have lapsed and land released for development permissible in case of adjacent land under relevant plan
- Non-filing of acquisition application under Section 126 after purchase notice confirmation makes rejection of development plan illegal
- Writ of certiorari and mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India available to quash illegal rejection and direct consideration of building plans.
