Bombay High Court Allows Lapsing of Land Reservation Under MRTP Act Due to Non-Acquisition for Over 10 Years. Petitioner's Land Reserved for Primary School and Playground Under Final Development Plan Notified in 1989 Held to Have Lapsed Under Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 107
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala, filed a writ petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 226, and 300A of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to declare that reservation no.57 over his land bearing CTS No.6758, admeasuring 4000 sq. mtrs., within the limits of Jalna Municipal Council, had lapsed and to direct the respondents to release the land from the reservation under the Final Development Plan of Jalna city. The land was reserved for a primary school and playground under the Final Development Plan notified on 15/05/1989. The petitioner contended that despite a resolution passed by the Planning Authority on 27/05/2002, the reservation was never acted upon for over 21 years. The respondents failed to acquire the land or take any steps to implement the reservation. The Court considered the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, which provides for lapsing of reservation if the land is not acquired within 10 years from the date of the plan. The Court held that the reservation had lapsed and directed respondent no.1 (State of Maharashtra) to notify the lapsing and publish it in the official gazette under Section 127(2) of the Act. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Failure to acquire land within 10 years - The petitioner's land was reserved for a primary school and playground under reservation no.57 in the Final Development Plan notified on 15/05/1989. Despite a resolution passed on 27/05/2002, the respondent authorities failed to acquire the land or take any steps for over 21 years. The Court held that the reservation had lapsed and directed the State to notify the lapsing and release the land. (Paras 1-5)

B) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Article 300A of Constitution of India - Deprivation of property without acquisition - The Court noted that continued reservation without acquisition for an unreasonable period amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law, and the petitioner is entitled to have the land released from reservation. (Para 2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the reservation over the petitioner's land under the Final Development Plan has lapsed due to non-acquisition within the statutory period under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The reservation no.57 over the petitioner's land bearing CTS No.6758, admeasuring 4000 sq. mtrs., is declared to have lapsed. Respondent no.1 is directed to notify the lapsing and publish it in the official gazette under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of MRTP Act
  • 1966
  • Mandamus for release of land
  • Failure to acquire within 10 years
  • Automatic lapsing upon expiry of period
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (02) 20

Writ Petition No.11759 of 2010

2011-02-17

P.V. Hardas, A.V. Potdar

Mr. S.P. Deshmukh for petitioner, Mr. D.V. Tele for respondent State, Mr. H.K. Mundhe for respondent no.2 & 3

Vijaykumar S/o. Motilal Hirakhanwala

The State of Maharashtra, Jalna Municipal Council, The Town Planner

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking declaration that reservation over land has lapsed and direction to release land from reservation.

Remedy Sought

Writ of mandamus directing respondents to confirm lapsing of reservation and release land, and to notify lapsing under Section 127(2) of MRTP Act.

Filing Reason

Reservation over petitioner's land not acted upon for over 21 years; no acquisition proceedings initiated.

Issues

Whether the reservation over the petitioner's land has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act due to non-acquisition within 10 years.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the land was reserved in 1989 and despite a resolution in 2002, no steps were taken for acquisition for over 21 years, hence reservation lapsed. Respondents did not contest the lapsing; they consented to the petition being heard finally.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, if land reserved in a development plan is not acquired within 10 years from the date of the plan, the reservation lapses and the land is released from reservation. The authorities are bound to notify the lapsing.

Judgment Excerpts

By the present writ petition under Article 14, 19(1)(g), Article 226 and 300A of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing respondents to confirm lapsing of reservation and release of land from reservation no.57 over an area of 4000 Sq.Mtrs. of C.T.S.No. 6758... It is further contended that the aforesaid reservation had neither been persuaded nor acted upon over last 21 years.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11759 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petition was heard at the stage of admission with consent of parties and disposed of on 17/02/2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 127, 127(2)
  • Constitution of India: 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 300A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal Award for Exceeding Scope of Reference in Superannuation Dispute. The Court Holds That a Tribunal Under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Cannot Adjudicate Issues Not Referred to It and...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses MSEDCL's Petition Challenging Ombudsman's Order to Restore Consumer's Electricity Supply. The Court upheld the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to entertain billing disputes and direct reconnection without precondition of payment ...