Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Refusal of Building Permission Due to Playground Reservation Under MRTP Act. Notice Under Section 127 Held Not Premature as 10-Year Period for Acquisition Had Expired.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Irfan Allabaksh Shaikh, owned land bearing CTS No. 6167 in Siddheshwar Peth, Solapur, which was reserved as a playground (site No. 319) in the development plan published on 16 January 1978 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The land admeasured 5070 sq. meters. The Solapur Municipal Corporation did not acquire the land within the statutory period of 10 years from the date of the development plan. On 6 January 2016, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the Municipal Corporation, calling upon them to acquire the land or release it from reservation. The Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, by order dated 6 June 2016, refused building permission on the ground that the land was affected by the playground reservation. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Additional Secretary, Town Planning Department, State of Maharashtra, who by order dated 6 April 2018 rejected the notice as premature by 30 days, holding that the notice was issued before the expiry of the 10-year period from the date of the draft development plan. The petitioner challenged both orders by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which provides that if land reserved for a public purpose is not acquired within 10 years from the date of the development plan, the owner may serve a notice on the authority to acquire the land; if no steps are taken within 12 months, the reservation lapses. The court noted that the development plan was published on 16 January 1978, and the 10-year period expired on 15 January 1988. The notice under Section 127 was issued on 6 January 2016, which was well after the expiry of the 10-year period. The court held that the notice was not premature because the 10-year period had already expired. The court further held that the reservation had lapsed due to non-acquisition, and the petitioner was entitled to have the land released from reservation. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for building permission afresh within 60 days, in accordance with law, without reference to the reservation.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - Reservation of Land - Lapse of Reservation - Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The petitioner's land was reserved as a playground in the development plan published on 16 January 1978. The Municipal Corporation failed to acquire the land within 10 years. The petitioner issued a notice under Section 127 on 6 January 2016. The Assistant Engineer refused building permission on 6 June 2016 citing the reservation. The Additional Secretary rejected the notice as premature by 30 days. The High Court held that the notice was not premature because the 10-year period had already expired, and the reservation had lapsed. The court directed the respondents to consider the building permission application afresh within 60 days. (Paras 1-13)

B) Town Planning - Notice under Section 127 - Premature Notice - Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The Additional Secretary rejected the notice as premature by 30 days, but the court found that the 10-year period for acquisition had expired long before the notice. The court held that the notice was valid and the reservation had lapsed. (Paras 4-13)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966 was premature when the 10-year period for acquisition had already expired, and whether the petitioner is entitled to building permission after the reservation lapsed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 6 June 2016 passed by the Assistant Engineer and the order dated 6 April 2018 passed by the Additional Secretary. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for building permission afresh within 60 days, in accordance with law, without reference to the reservation.

Law Points

  • Reservation of land for public purpose
  • Acquisition of reserved land
  • Lapse of reservation under Section 127 of MRTP Act
  • Premature notice
  • Right to develop after lapse of reservation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 69

Writ Petition No. 14126 of 2018

2023-10-13

Sunil B. Shukre, Rajesh S. Patil

2023:BHC-AS:30607-DB

Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Yogesh Thorat i/b. Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Petitioner. Mr. Vishwanath Patil for Respondent no.1 & 3 for the Corporation. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.2 & 4 for the State.

Irfan Allabaksh Shaikh

The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging refusal of building permission and rejection of notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of orders refusing building permission and rejecting notice under Section 127, and direction to grant building permission.

Filing Reason

The petitioner's land was reserved as a playground; building permission was refused due to reservation; notice under Section 127 was rejected as premature.

Previous Decisions

Assistant Engineer refused building permission on 6 June 2016; Additional Secretary rejected notice under Section 127 on 6 April 2018.

Issues

Whether the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was premature. Whether the petitioner is entitled to building permission after the reservation lapsed.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the 10-year period for acquisition had expired long before the notice, so the notice was not premature. Respondents argued that the notice was premature by 30 days as per the Additional Secretary's order.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, if land reserved for a public purpose is not acquired within 10 years from the date of the development plan, the owner may serve a notice; if no steps are taken within 12 months, the reservation lapses. The 10-year period expired on 15 January 1988, and the notice issued on 6 January 2016 was not premature. The reservation had lapsed, and the petitioner is entitled to have the land released from reservation.

Judgment Excerpts

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 6 June 2016 passed by the Assistant Engineer Municipal Corporation, Solapur, thereby refusing building permission as the plot of land is affected by reservation of play ground; and order dated 6 April 2018 passed by the Additional Secretary, State of Maharashtra, Town Planning Department, thereby rejecting the notice issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966 on the ground that the notice is premature by 30 days. On 16 January 1978 the development plan of Solapur was published, wherein CTS No. 6167, Siddheshwar Solapur was reserved at site No.319 as 'play ground', admeasuring 5070 sq. mtrs.

Procedural History

The development plan was published on 16 January 1978. The petitioner issued a notice under Section 127 on 6 January 2016. The Assistant Engineer refused building permission on 6 June 2016. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Secretary, who rejected the notice on 6 April 2018. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 26 July 2018. The High Court reserved judgment on 18 August 2023 and pronounced on 13 October 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 127
  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Lack of Fresh Material. Gift of Property by Company to Director's Husband Held Not to be Income, as Assessee's Objections Were Not Properly Considered.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind and Mechanical Confirmation. Detenu's Preventive Detention Set Aside as Authorities Failed to Consider Relevant Material and Confirmatory Order Was Passed Without In...