Bombay High Court Allows Declaration of Lapsed Reservation Under Section 127 of MRTP Act for Failure to Acquire Land Within Statutory Period. Purchase Notice Served Under Section 127(1) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Not Followed by Acquisition Within Two Years, Resulting in Deemed Lapsing of Reservation.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers, owned land admeasuring 6377.12 Sq.Mts. in Nagpur, which was reserved for a 24-meter wide DP Road in the Final Development Plan that came into force on 01/03/2000. Since the respondent authorities failed to acquire the land for over ten years, the petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) on 27/07/2016 to the Assistant Director, Urban Town Planning Department (Respondent No.3). In response, the respondent No.3 informed the petitioner on 16/09/2016 that compensation would be given in the form of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and asked the petitioner to submit an application. The petitioner applied for TDR on 16/09/2016, and on 22/12/2017, the respondent No.3 informed that the TDR application was approved by the Commissioner. However, no TDR was actually granted, and no acquisition proceedings were initiated. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the reservation had lapsed due to non-acquisition within two years of the purchase notice. The respondents argued that the offer of TDR constituted steps for acquisition and that the period of two years should be counted from the date of the development plan coming into force. The court analyzed Section 127 of the MRTP Act and held that the limitation period of two years commences from the date of service of the purchase notice, not from the date of the development plan. The court further held that the offer of TDR does not amount to acquisition or steps for acquisition, as no actual acquisition or compensation was made. Since the respondents failed to acquire the land within two years from 27/07/2016, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed. The court allowed the petition, declaring the land free from reservation, and directed the respondents to issue a notification under Section 127(2) within three months.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - Deemed Lapsing of Reservation - Section 127 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Purchase Notice - The petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 127(1) on 27/07/2016 for land reserved for a DP Road. The respondent authorities failed to acquire the land within two years. The court held that the reservation is deemed to have lapsed and the land is free from reservation, directing the respondents to issue a notification under Section 127(2) within three months. (Paras 1-14)

B) Town Planning - Acquisition - Offer of TDR - Section 127 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The respondent's offer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) does not constitute acquisition or steps for acquisition within the meaning of Section 127. The court held that mere offer of TDR without actual grant or acquisition proceedings does not prevent the lapsing of reservation. (Paras 5-12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the reservation of the petitioner's land for a DP Road is deemed to have lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, due to the failure of the respondent authorities to acquire the land within two years from the date of service of the purchase notice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, declaring that the reservation of the petitioner's land is deemed to have lapsed and the land is free from all reservations. The respondents were directed to issue a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act within three months.

Law Points

  • Deemed lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of MRTP Act
  • 1966
  • Purchase notice under Section 127(1)
  • Failure to acquire land within two years
  • Commencement of limitation period from date of service of purchase notice
  • Offer of TDR does not constitute acquisition or steps for acquisition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 101

WRIT PETITION NO. 2231 OF 2019

2022-01-27

SUNIL B.SHUKRE, ANIL S. KILOR

Shri V.G.Palshikar for petitioner, Ms N.P.Mehta for Respondent No.1, Shri S.M.Puranik for Respondent Nos.2 & 3

Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers

The State of Maharashtra, The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Assistant Director, Urban Town Planning Department

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking declaration that reservation of land for DP Road has lapsed due to non-acquisition within statutory period under Section 127 of MRTP Act.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that the reservation of the petitioner's land is deemed to have lapsed and the land is free from reservation.

Filing Reason

Failure of respondent authorities to acquire the petitioner's land reserved for a DP Road within two years from the date of service of purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act.

Issues

Whether the reservation of the petitioner's land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act due to non-acquisition within two years of the purchase notice. Whether the offer of TDR by the respondents constitutes steps for acquisition within the meaning of Section 127.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the respondents failed to acquire the land within two years from the date of service of purchase notice on 27/07/2016, and therefore the reservation is deemed to have lapsed. Respondents argued that the offer of TDR amounts to steps for acquisition and that the period of two years should be counted from the date of the development plan coming into force.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, if land reserved for a public purpose is not acquired within two years from the date of service of a purchase notice, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed. The offer of TDR does not constitute acquisition or steps for acquisition. The limitation period commences from the date of service of the purchase notice, not from the date of the development plan.

Judgment Excerpts

Upon failure of the respondent authorities to acquire petitioner’s land reserved for 24 meters wide D.P. Road in the Final Development Plan of the City of Nagpur, within statutory period of two years from the date of service of purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking declaration that the reservation of the land in question, is deemed to have lapsed. The respondent No.3 vide its communication dated 16/09/2016 informed the petitioner that, the petitioner would be compensated with Commensurate Transferable Development Right(TDR). It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner thereafter visited the office of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on number of occasions for grant of TDR. However, the respondent authorities did not grant TDR.

Procedural History

The petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act on 27/07/2016. The respondent No.3 responded on 16/09/2016 offering TDR. The petitioner applied for TDR on 16/09/2016. On 22/12/2017, the respondent No.3 informed that the TDR application was approved. No TDR was granted. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date, which was reserved for judgment on 23/09/2021 and pronounced on 27/01/2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 127, 127(1), 127(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Declaration of Lapsed Reservation Under Section 127 of MRTP Act for Failure to Acquire Land Within Statutory Period. Purchase Notice Served Under Section 127(1) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Not Followed...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Impleadment Order in Domestic Violence Counterclaim — Order I Rule 10(2) CPC Cannot Be Used to Add Parties After Suit Withdrawal. The court held that once the original plaintiff withdraws the suit, the counterclaim cannot ...