Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for De-reservation of Land Under MRTP Act — Failure to Acquire Within Ten Years. Petitioners entitled to de-reservation of land reserved for public purpose as acquisition proceedings were not completed within the statutory period under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, legal heirs of the original owner Madhavrao Bhagwatrao Rajebahadur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to delete and de-reserve their lands bearing Survey No. 237/1 and part of Survey No. 230/1 situated at Malegaon, within the limits of Malegaon Municipal Corporation. The lands were reserved under Reservation No. 60 of the Final Development Plan published by the Municipal Corporation. The petitioners contended that despite the reservation, the respondents (State of Maharashtra, Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Municipal Commissioner, and Malegaon Municipal Corporation) had failed to initiate or complete acquisition proceedings within the statutory period of ten years from the date of the final development plan. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to de-reserve the land, relying on Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), which provides that if land reserved for a public purpose is not acquired within ten years, the reservation lapses and the land becomes available to the owner for any purpose permissible under the development plan. The court noted that an interim order had been passed on 05/12/2006. During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel sought and was granted leave to delete the names of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Municipal Commissioner and Malegaon Municipal Corporation) from the cause title. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the acquisition proceedings had not been completed within the ten-year period, and therefore the reservation had lapsed. The court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to de-reserve the land and permit the petitioners to use it for any purpose permissible under the development plan. The court also disposed of the pending civil application.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - De-reservation of Land - Section 127 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Lapse of Reservation - The petitioners sought de-reservation of their land reserved for a public purpose under the final development plan. The court held that since the acquisition proceedings were not completed within ten years from the date of the final development plan, the reservation had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The court directed the respondents to de-reserve the land and allow the petitioners to use it for any purpose permissible under the development plan. (Paras 3-6)

B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 Constitution of India - Direction to Statutory Authority - The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to delete the reservation and de-reserve the petitioners' land. The court relied on the statutory scheme under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which provides for automatic lapse of reservation if acquisition is not completed within the prescribed period. (Paras 3-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to de-reservation of their land reserved under the development plan due to non-completion of acquisition proceedings within the statutory period of ten years under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to delete the reservation and de-reserve the petitioners' land. The petitioners are permitted to use the land for any purpose permissible under the development plan. The civil application was disposed of.

Law Points

  • De-reservation of land
  • Lapse of reservation
  • Failure to acquire within ten years
  • Section 127 MRTP Act
  • Writ of mandamus
  • Article 226 Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 33

WRIT PETITION NO. 3252 OF 2006

2022-01-12

R. D. Dhanuka, S. M. Modak

Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for Petitioners and Applicants, Mr. Rajan S. Pawar (AGP) for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5

Madhavrao Bhagwatrao Rajebahadur (since deceased through legal heirs and representatives) and Narayanrao Bhagwantrao Rajebahadur (since deceased through legal heirs and representatives)

State of Maharashtra, Collector Nashik District, Special Land Acquisition Officer Scarcity No. 2, Municipal Commissioner Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon Municipal Corporation

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for de-reservation of land.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a direction to delete and de-reserve their lands bearing Survey No. 237/1 and part of Survey No. 230/1 situated at Malegaon, within the limits of Malegaon Municipal Corporation, which were reserved under Reservation No. 60 of the Final Development Plan.

Filing Reason

The respondents failed to initiate or complete acquisition proceedings within the statutory period of ten years from the date of the final development plan, causing the reservation to lapse under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

Previous Decisions

An interim order was passed by this Court on 05/12/2006 in this Writ Petition under Civil Application.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to de-reservation of their land due to non-completion of acquisition within ten years under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the land was reserved under the final development plan but no acquisition proceedings were completed within ten years, entitling them to de-reservation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Respondents did not contest the lapse; the court noted the failure to acquire within the statutory period.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, if land reserved for a public purpose in a final development plan is not acquired within ten years from the date of the plan, the reservation lapses, and the land becomes available to the owner for any purpose permissible under the plan. The court can issue a writ of mandamus to enforce this statutory right.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek writ of mandamus for a direction to delete and dereserve the lands of the Petitioners bearing Survey No. 237/1 and land measuring about 892 sq.mtrs. out of Survey No. 230/1 situated at Malegaon, within the limits of Municipal Corporation which is referred under Reservation bearing No. 60 of the Final Development Plan duly published by the said Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions of the Petitioners seeks liberty to delete the names of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from the cause title of the petition. Leave to amend is granted.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed in 2006. An interim order was passed on 05/12/2006. The petition was heard on 12/01/2022 via video conference. During the hearing, the petitioners were allowed to delete Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The court then allowed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 127
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Disqualification Proceedings Against Zilla Parishad Councillors for Alleged Defection — Whip Not Issued in Compliance with Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986. The court held that without a vali...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition and Quashes Detention Order Under COFEPOSA Act Due to Non-Application of Mind and Inordinate Delay. The court held that the detaining authority failed to apply its mind and the delay of over two years i...