Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of a parcel of land bearing CTS Nos. F/189, F/190, F/191, F/192 and Final Plot No. 646, T.P.S. No. III, Bandra, Mumbai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The land, admeasuring about 900 square yards, was reserved for a Municipal Primary School in the Development Plan sanctioned on 7 May 1992 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The petitioners traced title through a deed of conveyance dated 17 July 1978 and claimed that after the death of their predecessor on 25 December 1998, they were the sole owners with their names duly mutated in the property card. The reservation remained, but the respondents did not acquire the land within the ten‑year period from the Development Plan's sanction (by 6 May 2002). On 22 August 2007 the petitioners served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, calling upon the planning authority to acquire the land within six months. No steps for acquisition were taken during that period, which ended on 21 February 2008. Consequently, the petitioners asserted that the reservation lapsed by operation of law on 22 February 2008. They later addressed a letter on 25 March 2013 purporting to recall the purchase notice, but canceled that letter on 11 June 2014 on the ground that it was sent under a misconception of law. In July 2014, they filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the land stood released from reservation and that the respondents be directed to amend the Development Plan accordingly. After the filing of the petition, the State Government issued a notification dated 27 July 2018 under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act read with Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, declaring that the land was needed for a Municipal Primary School and that compensation would be paid under the 2013 Act. The petitioners amended the writ petition on 5 January 2019 to challenge this notification as void because the reservation had already lapsed. The core legal issues were whether the reservation lapsed under Section 127, whether the 2018 notification was valid, and whether the recall letter had any effect. The petitioners relied on a line of Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments, especially Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, which held that “steps” for acquisition mean publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (now Section 19 of the 2013 Act) and that failure to do so within six months of the purchase notice causes automatic lapsing. The provided judgment excerpt ends before the court’s analysis and final order; the file is incomplete. It records only the issuance of Rule and the arguments of the petitioners’ counsel.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition – Lapsing of Reservation – Section 127, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – The purchase notice under Section 127 triggers a six‑month period for the planning authority to take steps for acquisition; if no steps are taken, the reservation is deemed to lapse and the land is released from reservation. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12) B) Land Acquisition – Meaning of ‘Steps’ for Acquisition – Section 127, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 / Section 19, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ‘Steps’ for acquisition means the publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the old Land Acquisition Act, now replaced by Section 19 of the 2013 Act; mere proposals or correspondence do not constitute steps. (Paras 12, 13, 16) C) Land Acquisition – Effect of Recalling Purchase Notice – Section 127, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – A landowner’s letter purporting to recall a purchase notice issued under Section 127, especially when later cancelled, cannot nullify the legal effect of lapsing of reservation that has already occurred by operation of law. (Paras 9, 10) D) Land Acquisition – Validity of Subsequent Notification After Lapse – Section 126, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Section 19, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – A notification for acquisition issued years after the reservation has lapsed under Section 127 is without authority of law and is void; lapsing is irreversible and cannot be overridden by a later declaration. (Paras 8, 10, 15) E) Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A, Constitution of India – Depriving a landowner of the use of property for an indefinite period without paying compensation, by ignoring the statutory lapsing of reservation, amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law and violates Article 300A. (Paras 10, 13) F) Precedent – Followed – Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 1; Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher, (2013) 5 SCC 627; Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 11 SCC 554; Ramakant Vasudeo Pai v. State of Maharashtra, WP (ST) No. 1497 of 2020 (Bombay High Court) – These decisions confirm that a purchase notice under Section 127 is a mandatory trigger and that failure to publish an acquisition declaration within the prescribed period causes automatic lapsing of reservation. (Paras 12, 13, 15, 16, 17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reservation of the petitioners’ land lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 due to the respondents’ failure to take steps for acquisition within six months of the purchase notice; whether the subsequent acquisition notification dated 27 July 2018 is valid after the deemed lapse; and whether the petitioners’ letter recalling the purchase notice nullifies the lapse.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Reservation lapses automatically if no steps for acquisition taken within six months of purchase notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act
- ‘Steps’ means publication of declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act / Section 19 of the 2013 Act
- Letter recalling purchase notice does not revive lapsed reservation
- Subsequent notification after lapse is void
- Violation of Article 300A of Constitution if land retained without compensation.
