Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard a batch of four writ petitions involving a common question of law and fact arising from the Jalgaon Town Planning Scheme II. The background involved a declaration of intention to prepare the scheme on 17/7/1964, sanction of the draft scheme on 17/2/1967, appointment of an Arbitrator, and sanction of the final scheme on 14/6/1979. Originally, plot No. 526 in Survey No. 170 was reserved for a garden. After the draft scheme, 18 original owners of that plot were allotted final plot No. 524. They subsequently sold their undivided shares, and the present petitioners are the purchasers of those shares. The revised Development Plan was sanctioned on 6/1/1993, coming into force on 15/2/1993, reserving final plot No. 524 for a playground and primary school. After the expiry of 10 years from the date the revised plan came into force, the petitioners or their predecessors issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP Act) to the Jalgaon Municipal Corporation. The Corporation failed to acquire the land within the prescribed six-month period. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking directions to dereserve the plot. The Municipal Corporation opposed the petitions, contending that the petitioners had not produced documents to prove their title, that the property register cards were only for fiscal purposes, and that the original allottees never received possession because they illegally sold the original plot, which was the basis for the exchange. The petitioners argued that the MRTP Act is a complete code, that the final scheme determined rights and possession was handed over, that their names in property register cards constitute sufficient notice of title, that no inquiry into title is contemplated under Section 127, and that the lapse of six months automatically results in dereservation. They relied on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions in support. The respondents relied on decisions emphasizing the need for documentary title proof. The court reserved judgment on 28/06/2010 and pronounced an oral judgment on 13/08/2010, but the provided excerpt of the judgment does not contain the court's detailed reasoning or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, as purchasers of undivided shares in a final plot, have locus standi to issue purchase notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act and seek dereservation, and whether the failure of the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land within the statutory period entitles them to automatic dereservation.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 127 of MRTP Act regarding automatic dereservation after lapse of purchase notice period
- determination of rights in final scheme under Sections 88
- 89
- 90
- requirement of title proof for invoking Section 127
- effect of final scheme on reconstituted plots
- role of arbitrator under Section 72
- sanction of final scheme under Section 86
- eviction powers under Section 89
- enforcement of scheme under Section 90
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (08) 16
Writ Petition No. 1808 of 2002 (along with Writ Petition Nos. 7198, 7226, 7227 of 2005)
B.R. Gavai, S.V. Gangapurwala
Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Mr. A.B. Kale for Petitioners; Mr. K.B. Choudhari for State; Mr. P.R. Patil for Municipal Corporation
Satish S/o Soma Bhole & Others
State of Maharashtra & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking dereservation of a plot reserved for public purpose due to alleged lapse under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
Remedy Sought
Direction to the respondents to dereserve final plot No. 524.
Filing Reason
Petitioners, claiming to be owners of final plot No. 524, issued purchase notice under Section 127 after 10 years of reservation; the Municipal Corporation did not acquire the land within six months; hence they sought statutory dereservation.
Issues
Whether the petitioners have established sufficient interest in the land to maintain the petition under Section 127?
Whether the lapse of six months from the date of purchase notice automatically results in dereservation of the reserved plot?
Whether the requirement of proving title through documentary evidence is necessary for invoking Section 127?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: The MRTP Act is a complete code; after the final scheme, rights in original plots determine and reconstituted plots vest in allottees; possession of final plot 524 was handed over to original owners and subsequently transferred; petitioners' names appear in property register card, which constitutes valid notice of title; inquiry into title is not contemplated under Section 127; failure to acquire within six months leads to automatic dereservation.
Respondents: Petitioners failed to produce documents of title; property register card is not a document of title; original allottees never got possession because they illegally sold original plot, thus no right in final plot; petitioners are not persons interested.
Judgment Excerpts
The revised Development Plan was sanctioned on 6/1/1993 and final plot No. 524 was reserved for play ground and primary school site Nos. 126 and 127 (Para 3).
After completion of the period of 10 years, a right is created upon the occupier or the person having an interest in the property to issue a purchase notice. (Para 3)
The Jalgaon Municipal Corporation failed to acquire the land within the said period of six months as stipulated in Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. (Para 3)
Enquiry into title is not contemplated. (submission of petitioners, Para 5(iv))
The property register card is not a document of title and it is meant only for fiscal purpose. (submission of respondent Municipal Corporation, Para 6(i))
Procedural History
The lead writ petition (No. 1808/2002) was filed in 2002, and three other petitions (Nos. 7198, 7226, 7227 of 2005) were filed later, all challenging the non-acquisition of the reserved plot. The cases were heard together by the division bench and reserved on 28/06/2010, with judgment pronounced on 13/08/2010. The background involves a Town Planning Scheme II sanctioned in 1979, a revised development plan in 1993, and a purchase notice issued thereafter.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act: Section 127, Section 68, Section 72, Section 86, Section 88, Section 89, Section 90, Section 101
