The Bombay High Court dealt with the issue of the lapsing of a land reservation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The Petitioner, Sakharam Jadhav, sought relief after the authorities failed to act on his purchase notice issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which requested the lapsing of the reservation of his land for a garden.

The Court noted that, according to settled law, once a valid notice under Section 127 is served, and the authorities do not take the requisite steps for acquisition within the stipulated period, the reservation automatically lapses, freeing the land from the reservation. The Court referred to its previous ruling in Uday Madhavrao Patwardan & Ors vs. Sangli Miraj Kupwada City Municipal Corporation, Sangli & Ors, reinforcing that the landowner does not need to seek a court declaration for the lapsing of the reservation.

Background:

• Property Details: The Petitioner owns land in Village Mangrul, Taluka Ambernath, District Thane, reserved as a "Garden" in the 2005 Development Plan of Kulgaon Badlapur Municipal Council.
• 15 Years of Inaction: Despite the reservation, no steps for acquisition were taken by the authorities from 2005 to 2020.

Legal Proceedings:

• Purchase Notice: On 22nd October 2020, the Petitioner served a Purchase Notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, requesting the lapsing of the reservation.
• Inaction by Authorities: The local municipal council (KBMC) and the Mumbai Metropolitan Development Authority (MMRDA) failed to act on the notice within the statutory two-year period.

Court's Decision:

• Automatic Lapsing: The Court reiterated that the reservation lapses automatically if the authorities fail to take necessary steps within the specified time frame.
• Relief Granted: The Court allowed the Petition, directing the State Government to notify the lapsing of the reservation and consider any future development applications by the Petitioner within a year of submission.

Conclusion:

The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely action by authorities in land acquisition matters and reinforces the legal protection afforded to landowners under the MRTP Act. The case underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the rights of landowners when public authorities fail to act within the bounds of the law.