Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, heard a batch of four writ petitions concerning the lapse of land reservations under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The petitioners, owners of various lands, claimed that their properties were reserved under development plans prepared by the Municipal Council, Corporation, or CIDCO, but no acquisition steps had been taken for over ten years. After serving statutory purchase notices under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, the planning authorities failed to publish a declaration under Section 126 read with Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within the mandated twenty-four-month period. Instead, the authorities communicated an offer to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) as compensation. The core legal dispute centered on whether such a unilateral TDR offer, without a concluded agreement between the parties, met the requirement of ‘steps towards acquisition’ under Section 127(1) to arrest the lapsing of reservation. The petitioners argued that the majority view in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 555 requires actual steps leading to a declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, and that TDR can only be granted by mutual agreement under Section 126(1)(b). They relied on Balaji Associates v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 19 SCC 1 and Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627, asserting that a mere offer without agreement does not constitute a step. They also cited earlier Division Bench decisions holding that TDR can only be granted with agreement. The respondents, relying on a recent Division Bench ruling in Asha Sunil Zawar v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 5938/2020), contended that a communicated TDR offer is sufficient compliance under Section 126(1)(b). CIDCO additionally highlighted its board resolutions providing for Development Right Certificates and a later resolution to stop acquisition and de-notify the project. The court considered these submissions and quoted the text of Section 126, but the provided judgment text abruptly ends, and the court's analysis, final decision, and any ratio decidendi are not included in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Reservation - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Sections 126, 127 - Whether unilateral offer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) by the planning authority suffices as 'steps towards acquisition' under Section 127(1) to prevent lapsing - Petitioners contended that no declaration under Section 126 read with Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was published and no steps under Section 126(2) or (4) were taken, thereby lapsing the reservation - Respondents argued that offering TDR constituted compliance, relying on Section 126(1)(b) and Asha Sunil Zawar v. State of Maharashtra - Held: The judgment excerpt does not contain the court's final ruling (Paras 3-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether offering Transferable Development Rights (TDR) by a planning authority, without a concluded agreement, is sufficient compliance with the requirement of taking steps towards acquisition under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to prevent lapsing of reservation.
Law Points
- lapse of reservation
- steps towards acquisition
- TDR compensation
- Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966
- Section 126 of MRTP Act
- Section 19 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- agreement for acquisition
- Transferable Development Rights
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (12) 16
Writ Petition No.5396 of 2021 with Writ Petition No.5403 of 2021, Writ Petition No.5525 of 2021, and Writ Petition No.5537 of 2021
S. V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Mr. S. P. Tiwari, Mr. Mehul V. Navandar, Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Mr. A. S. Bajaj, Mr. S. G. Karlekar
M/s. Yashashwin Enterprises, M/s. Sarveshwar Associates, Girish S/o Narayan Pawar and others, Kaustub Shekhar Latke and others
The State of Maharashtra (Urban Development Department), Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, CIDCO, and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging lapsing of reservation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 due to failure to acquire lands within statutory period after notice under Section 127(1).
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought declaration that reservation of their lands has lapsed and they are entitled to develop the land free from reservation.
Filing Reason
Planning Authority did not take adequate steps for acquisition within 24 months of service of purchase notice under Section 127(1).
Issues
Whether the offer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) by the Planning Authority, without a concluded agreement with the landowner, constitutes sufficient 'steps towards acquisition' under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, thereby preventing lapsing of reservation.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: No declaration under Section 126 read with Section 19 of 2013 Act was made; steps under Section 126(2) or (4) not taken; offer of TDR only valid if by agreement; any unilateral offer does not constitute steps; reliance on Girnar Traders and other precedents.
Respondents: Offer of TDR within 24 months is sufficient compliance and amounts to steps towards acquisition under Section 126(1)(b); reliance on Division Bench in Asha Sunil Zawar; CIDCO passed resolutions for TDR compensation; petitioners did not challenge board resolutions.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners in these writ petitions claimed to be the owner of the lands detailed in the petitions. Their lands were reserved under the development plan prepared by the Municipal Council/ Corporation/CIDCO. For a period of 10 years no steps were undertaken by the Planning Authority to acquire the property.
Within the stipulated period of 24 months declaration under Section 126 of the Act, 1966 read with Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was not issued.
The respondents/Planning Authority contends that they had resolved and communicated petitioners that they are ready to give TDR to petitioners and the same is amounts to steps towards acquisition.
Whether offering Transferable Development Rights (TDR) by a planning authority, without a concluded agreement, is sufficient compliance with the requirement of taking steps towards acquisition under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to prevent lapsing of reservation.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed separate writ petitions (Nos. 5396, 5403, 5525, 5537 of 2021) after issuing purchase notices under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act and the planning authorities' failure to issue acquisition declaration within 24 months. The petitions were heard together by the High Court on similar facts and common questions of law.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Sections 126, 127, 126(1)(b), 126(1)(c), 126(2), 126(4), 127(1)
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 19
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 6
