Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the failure to implement a reservation for a children’s park in the Khamgaon city Development Plan, which was revised and came into force in 1993 under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The petitioners claimed ownership of 0.35 R out of Survey No. 123 based on a purchase deed and entries in the 7/12 extract. After the reservation remained unimplemented for more than ten years, the petitioners served a purchase notice dated February 9, 2018 on the Municipal Council, invoking Section 127 of the MRTP Act and demanding acquisition of their land. In response, the Town Planning Authority and Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Khamgaon, issued a communication dated December 24, 2018 refusing to entertain the notice, citing an objection from private respondents who claimed ownership over a different portion of the same survey number and a prior High Court order declaring the lapse of reservation over their larger parcel. The petitioners challenged this communication through writ petitions, contending that the rejection without granting them a hearing violated natural justice and that the 7/12 extract was sufficient proof of their interest as held in Abdul Gani N. Wadwan v. State of Maharashtra. The Municipal Council supported the rejection, arguing that the private respondents had already obtained a favourable order from a coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No. 3533/2017 and that no hearing was mandated under Section 127. The Court noted that the private respondents, despite service, did not appear, and observed that the lands in dispute might be distinct, so verification was needed. After examining the record, the Court held that even though Section 127 does not expressly provide for a hearing, the principles of natural justice must be read into the unoccupied interstices of the statute unless excluded. It found that the impugned communication prejudiced the petitioners’ rights without affording them an opportunity to contest the objections, which amounted to a denial of fair procedure. Consequently, the Court quashed the communication dated December 24, 2018, and directed the Chief Officer to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the private respondents and take a fresh decision on the entertainment of the purchase notice within three months by a reasoned order. Both writ petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Town Planning - Purchase Notice under Section 127, MRTP Act - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127 - Sufficiency of Documents to Show Interest - The petitioners relied on a 7/12 extract to claim ownership over 0.35 R of Survey No. 123. The Court reaffirmed the decision in Abdul Gani N. Wadwan v. State of Maharashtra that for a purchase notice under Section 127, it is not mandatory to produce title documents; documents showing title, such as 7/12 extracts, are sufficient to demonstrate the sender's interest in the land. Held: Entries in the 7/12 extract constituted sufficient material to establish the petitioners' interest for the purpose of entertaining the purchase notice (Para 3). B) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing under Silence of Statute - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127 - Principles of Natural Justice - The impugned communication rejected a purchase notice solely on the basis of third-party objections without affording the petitioners any hearing. The Court held that even if a statute is silent about an opportunity of hearing, principles of natural justice must be read into the unoccupied interstices of the statute unless expressly or impliedly excluded. Consequently, the rejection without a fair hearing was improper. Held: Adherence to natural justice by granting a hearing was necessary to ensure a fair procedure, and the impugned communication was quashed with a direction to the authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the objectors and decide afresh (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Town Planning Authority and Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Khamgaon could reject a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 without granting an opportunity of hearing to the senders of the notice when objections regarding ownership and boundaries were raised by third parties.
Final Decision
The impugned communication dated December 24, 2018 was quashed and set aside. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Khamgaon was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and private respondents and take a fresh decision regarding entertainment of the purchase notice within three months by a reasoned order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice must be read into the unoccupied interstices of a statute unless expressly excluded
- Section 127 of the MRTP Act does not require production of title deeds
- documents showing title like 7/12 extracts are sufficient
- Rejection of a purchase notice without granting an opportunity of hearing when third-party objections are raised violates natural justice.
