Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mukund Mohan Kurunbhatti and Subodh Motichand Bundelchandi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. They sought a declaration that the reservation on their land, Survey No. 303/1/1C at Chalisgaon, had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), and that the re-reservation of the same land in the sanctioned development plan dated 06.04.2016 was bad in law and non-est. The land was originally reserved as Site No. 41 for 'Play Ground and School' in the development plan dated 22.12.1989. The petitioners purchased the land by sale deed dated 30.12.2014, and the 7/12 extract noted the reservation. Petitioner No. 1 issued a purchase notice on 16.02.2015 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. In response, the Chief Officer sent a land acquisition proposal to the Collector on 28.05.2015, and a note was prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, no acquisition proceedings were completed within the statutory period of one year from the date of the purchase notice. Consequently, the reservation lapsed by operation of law. Despite this, the respondents included the same land in the revised development plan sanctioned on 06.04.2016, re-reserving it for the same purpose. The petitioners argued that once a reservation lapses under Section 127, the land is freed from reservation and cannot be re-reserved without a fresh acquisition process. The respondents contended that the re-reservation was valid as part of the revised plan. The court analyzed Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which provides that if land reserved for a public purpose is not acquired within one year from the date of a purchase notice, the reservation lapses and the land becomes available to the owner. The court held that the re-reservation of the same land after the lapsing of the earlier reservation was invalid and non-est. The court allowed the petition, declaring that the reservation on Survey No. 303/1/1C had lapsed and the re-reservation in the development plan dated 06.04.2016 was quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to issue a notification declaring the lapsing of the reservation.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Section 127 MRTP Act - Purchase Notice - The petitioners purchased land reserved for playground and school and issued purchase notice under Section 127. The respondents failed to acquire the land within one year, causing the reservation to lapse. The subsequent re-reservation in the revised plan was held to be bad in law and non-est. Held that once a reservation lapses under Section 127, the land is freed from reservation and cannot be re-reserved without following proper acquisition process (Paras 2-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the re-reservation of the petitioners' land in the sanctioned development plan dated 06.04.2016 is valid in law when the earlier reservation had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act due to non-acquisition within the statutory period.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, declaring that the reservation on Survey No. 303/1/1C has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, and the re-reservation of the said land in the sanctioned development plan dated 06.04.2016 is bad in law and non-est, and is quashed and set aside. Respondents were directed to issue notification declaring the lapsing of the reservation.
Law Points
- Section 127 MRTP Act
- lapsing of reservation
- re-reservation after lapsing
- purchase notice
- failure to acquire within one year
- non-est reservation
