Case Note & Summary
The case involves a reference to a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court arising from a writ petition concerning the interpretation of Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The petitioner, Shri Vishwas Bajirao Patil, owned land reserved for a public purpose under a development plan. He served a notice under Section 127(1) on the Planning Authority, demanding acquisition of his land. At the time of the notice, the provision required the authority to take effective steps for acquisition within 12 months, failing which the reservation would lapse. However, before the 12-month period expired, the MRTP Act was amended on 29th August 2015, extending the period from 12 to 24 months. The question arose whether this amendment applied to notices served before the amendment. The Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench. The Full Bench examined the language of Section 127(1) and the nature of the amendment. It held that the amendment is procedural and does not create any vested right in the landowner until the 12-month period expires without acquisition. Since the period had not expired before the amendment, the amended provision applies to all pending notices. The court reasoned that the right to deemed lapse is not a vested right but a statutory consequence that accrues only after the expiry of the prescribed period. Therefore, the amendment, being procedural, applies retrospectively to notices served before its commencement. The court answered the reference accordingly, holding that the enlarged period of 24 months applies to notices served before the amendment came into force.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Acquisition of Reserved Land - Section 127(1) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Amendment enlarging period from 12 to 24 months - Applicability to notices served before amendment - The court considered whether the amendment applies to notices served before 29th August 2015. Held that the amendment is procedural and applies to all pending notices, as the right to deemed lapse is not a vested right but a statutory consequence that accrues only after the expiry of the prescribed period. The amendment does not retrospectively affect any accrued right. (Paras 1-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, which enlarged the period from 12 months to 24 months for the Planning Authority to take effective steps for acquisition, applies to a notice served under Sub-Section (1) of Section 127 before the amendment came into force.
Final Decision
The Full Bench answered the reference by holding that the amendment to Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, which enlarged the period from 12 to 24 months, applies to notices served under Sub-Section (1) of Section 127 before the amendment came into force. The amendment is procedural and does not affect any vested right, as the right to deemed lapse accrues only after the expiry of the prescribed period.
Law Points
- Retrospective operation of procedural amendments
- Section 127(1) MRTP Act
- Deemed lapse of reservation
- Notice period extension
- Prospective vs retrospective application
