Case Note & Summary
The writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking a declaration that reservation of the petitioners' land of 0.74 hectares in District Beed, Maharashtra, for a public purpose under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 had lapsed and that the reserved land should be declared free for development. The petitioners were three brothers, Madanlal, Jawaharlal and Deelip Zumberlal Nahar, and the respondents were the Chief Officer of Municipal Council Beed, the Town Planner, the State of Maharashtra through the Deputy Secretary Urban Development Department, and the Collector Beed. The original development plan for Beed was sanctioned on 23.06.1975 and came into force on 16.08.1975, reserving the petitioners' land from Survey No.87 Taraf Giram for Post and Telegraph Department as Site No.17. The development plan was revised and sanctioned on 08.09.1997, and the excluded part was sanctioned on 10.05.2001, coming into force on 01.07.2001, by which the petitioners' land was reserved for Postal Department Quarter as Site No.2, with area reduced from 0.92 hectares to 0.74 hectares. The petitioners served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act on 29.06.2006 and again on 17.03.2009. As no steps were taken by the authorities to acquire the reserved land, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4232 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.2260 of 2010. The petitioners contended that the land remained under reservation for more than 47 years, that no acquisition steps were taken, that the postal department did not require the land, and that an attempt to convert the reservation to a garden was negatived by the State Government. They relied on Supreme Court decisions in Prafulla C. Dave and others v. Municipal Commissioner and others, Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and others, and Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra and others, as well as a Division Bench decision in Bhirulal (Bherulal) s/o Premchand Patil and others v. State of Maharashtra. The respondents argued that the revised development plan excluded part came into force only on 01.07.2001, and therefore both purchase notices were premature because they were served before the expiry of ten years from that date. The respondents also submitted that the procedure under Section 50 of the 1966 Act could be followed for dereservation. The State argued that no lapsing could occur without a valid notice under Section 127 and corresponding failure to acquire. The court formulated three questions of law: whether the ten-year period for notice under Section 127 should be computed from the final development plan under Section 31 or from the revised development plan under Section 38; whether the purchase notices dated 29.06.2006 and 17.03.2009 were valid and whether lapsing occurred; and whether prolonged reservation of 47 years entitled the owners to declaration under Article 226 even if notices were premature. The court began examining Sections 31, 38, 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act, and quoted Section 31 in part. The available judgment text ended without providing the final decision, ratio decidendi, or operative directions.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Lapsing of Reservation - Computation of Ten-Year Period for Purchase Notice - Sections 31, 38, 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Court framed the question whether the ten-year period for serving a purchase notice under Section 127 should be computed from the date of the final development plan under Section 31 or from the date of the revised development plan coming into force under Section 38. The court examined Sections 31, 38, 126 and 127 and noted that the revised development plan excluded part was sanctioned on 10.05.2001 and came into force on 01.07.2001. (Paras 13-14) B) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Validity of Purchase Notices - Lapsing of Reservation under Section 127 - Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The court was required to determine whether purchase notices dated 29.06.2006 and 17.03.2009 were valid notices and whether lapsing of reservation occurred. Petitioners contended that no steps for acquisition were taken after notices, while respondents argued that the notices were premature because they were issued before expiry of ten years from the revised development plan (excluded part) which came into force on 01.07.2001. (Paras 10-13) C) Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Prolonged Reservation and Declaration under Article 226 - Article 226 of Constitution of India, Section 50 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The court framed the question whether a prolonged reservation of 47 years entitled the owners of reserved land to seek a declaration that the land is free from reservation even if notices under Section 127 were premature or invalid. Petitioners relied on Supreme Court judgments in Prafulla C. Dave, Hasmukhrai V. Mehta and Chhabildas, and respondents relied on Section 50 dereservation procedure, but the final holding was not included in the provided excerpt. (Paras 8-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ten-year period for issuance of notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act should be computed from the date of the final development plan under Section 31 or from the date of the revised development plan coming into force under Section 38; whether the purchase notices dated 29.06.2006 and 17.03.2009 are valid and whether there is lapsing of reservation; whether prolonged reservation of 47 years entitles owners to declaration under Article 226 even if notices are premature or invalid.
Law Points
- Lapsing of reservation under Section 127 MRTP Act
- Validity of purchase notice under Section 127
- Computation of ten-year period from revised development plan under Section 38
- Prolonged reservation of 47 years and relief under Article 226
- Section 50 dereservation procedure
