Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sakharam Mahadev Jadhav (since deceased, represented by his legal heir Kailash Sakharam Jadhav), owned agricultural land in Village Mangrul, Taluka Ambernath, District Thane, which was reserved as 'Garden' under Reservation No. 51 in the draft development plan of Kulgaon Badlapur Municipal Council published in 2000 and sanctioned on 25 July 2005. The Mumbai Metropolitan Development Authority (MMRDA) was the Special Planning Authority for the area. For about 15 years, from 25 July 2005 to October 2020, the land remained under reservation without any steps being taken for acquisition by agreement or by publication of a declaration under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). On 22 October 2020, the petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act upon the respondents. The two-year statutory period ended on 21 October 2022 without any effective steps for acquisition. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 19 April 2023, aggrieved by the respondents' inaction in not issuing a notification of lapsing of the reservation. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, the Urban Development Department, MMRDA, and the Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council, contended that the local municipal body was responsible for acquisition and that proposals had been forwarded. The court, relying on the principle laid down in Uday Madhavrao Patwardan & Ors v. Sangli Miraj Kupwada City Municipal Corporation (2015 SCC OnLine Bom 659) and its own recent judgment in Sampat s/o Keru Chaudhary & Ors v. State of Maharashtra (2024:BHC-AS:30275-DB), held that the reservation lapsed automatically by operation of law upon failure to take steps for acquisition within the statutory period. The court observed that the authorities should have published the notification releasing the land without requiring the petitioner to file a petition. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish the notification in terms of prayer clause [A].
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Section 127 MRTP Act - Automatic Deemed Release - The petitioner owned land reserved as 'Garden' under a development plan. Despite service of a purchase notice under Section 127(1) on 22 October 2020, the respondents failed to take steps for acquisition within the two-year statutory period. The court held that the reservation lapsed automatically by operation of law and the authorities were bound to publish a notification releasing the land from reservation. No declaratory relief from court is necessary. (Paras 4-5, 15-17)
B) Town Planning - Steps for Acquisition - Sections 126, 127 MRTP Act - Commencement of Acquisition - The court reiterated that steps for acquisition commence only upon publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Mere forwarding of proposals or correspondence does not constitute steps for acquisition. (Paras 14-15)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 Constitution of India - Direction to Notify Lapsing - The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish the notification releasing the petitioner's land from reservation, as the inaction was contrary to settled law and the petitioner was unnecessarily compelled to approach the court. (Paras 15-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents' failure to take steps for acquisition of the petitioner's land within the statutory period under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, results in automatic lapsing of the reservation, and whether the authorities are obliged to issue a notification to that effect without requiring the petitioner to seek a court declaration.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to publish the notification releasing the petitioner's land from Reservation No. 51 (Garden) in terms of prayer clause [A] of the petition. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Lapsing of reservation under Section 127 MRTP Act is automatic upon failure to take steps for acquisition within prescribed period
- no need for declaratory relief from court
- purchase notice triggers deemed release of land from reservation
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 273
WRIT PETITION NO. 7018 OF 2023
Mr Tanaji Mhatugade (for Petitioner), Mr AA Alaspurkar, AGP (for Respondents 1 & 2), Mr Akshay Shinde (for Respondent No. 3)
Shri. Sakharam Mahadev Jadhav (since deceased, through legal heir Shri. Kailash Sakharam Jadhav)
State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Metropolitan Commissioner M.M.R.D.A., Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council, Chief Officer of Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal Council
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to issue a notification of lapsing of reservation of the petitioner's land under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish a notification releasing the petitioner's land from Reservation No. 51 (Garden) due to failure to acquire within the statutory period.
Filing Reason
The respondents failed to take steps for acquisition of the petitioner's land within two years of service of a purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, and did not issue a notification of lapsing of reservation despite settled law.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner had served a purchase notice on 22 October 2020. The two-year statutory period ended on 21 October 2022. No acquisition steps were taken. The respondents only forwarded proposals but did not commence acquisition.
Issues
Whether the reservation of the petitioner's land lapsed automatically under Section 127 of the MRTP Act due to failure to take steps for acquisition within the statutory period.
Whether the respondents are obliged to issue a notification of lapsing of reservation without requiring the petitioner to seek a court declaration.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish such notification.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel (Mr Tanaji Mhatugade) submitted that the respondents failed to take any steps for acquisition within two years of the purchase notice, and the reservation lapsed automatically. The authorities should have published the notification releasing the land as per the law laid down in Uday Madhavrao Patwardan.
Respondent No. 3's counsel (Mr Akshay Shinde) submitted that the local municipal body (KBMC) was responsible for acquisition, and MMRDA had forwarded the purchase notice to KBMC. KBMC had submitted a proposal for acquisition to the Collector. He argued that MMRDA had no role in acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, upon service of a valid purchase notice, if the appropriate authority fails to take steps for acquisition within the prescribed period, the reservation lapses automatically by operation of law. No declaratory relief from court is necessary. The authorities are bound to issue a notification releasing the land from reservation. Steps for acquisition commence only upon publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Section 19 of the 2013 Act.
Judgment Excerpts
After service of a valid notice under section 127 to either the Appropriate Authority or the Planning Authority, as the case may be, if steps as contemplated by section 127 are not taken within the period stipulated in the section the reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land in respect of which the notice is issued shall be deemed to be released from the reservation.
Thus, by operation of law the land stands released from the reservation and the Planning Authority or Appropriate Authority cannot treat the land as reserved. In fact there is no need for the owner to seek a declaration from the court of law on the basis of notice under section 127.
It is abundantly clear that the KBMC has not taken the steps contemplated by law in this case. Thus, the authorities should have followed the law in Uday Madhavrao Patwardan & Ors (supra) and published the notification releasing the Petitioner’s property from the reservation.
Procedural History
The petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act on 22 October 2020. The two-year statutory period ended on 21 October 2022. No acquisition steps were taken. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 19 April 2023. The petition was heard on 22 August 2024 and judgment pronounced on 27 August 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 126, 127, 127(1)
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXVII, Rule 4
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 6
- The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 19
