Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Lapsing of Land Reservation Due to Inaction by Municipal Authorities Under Section 127 of MRTP Act, 1966. The court held that a purchase notice under Section 127 substantially complied with requirements and the reservation lapsed as the authorities failed to acquire the land within the statutory period.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 117
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, owners of land Gat No.370, Hissa No.1 at Pen, Raigad, filed a writ petition seeking release of their land from reservation No.7 (Garden) under the development plan that came into force on 3rd March 1989. They issued a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on 2nd February 2009 to the Pen Municipal Council (respondent No.3), which was received. Despite the notice, no steps were taken for acquisition. The petitioners also sent a reminder to the State on 11th March 2010. The respondents argued that the notice was not in compliance with Section 127. The court examined the notice and found that it substantially complied with the requirements, as it identified the land and expressed the petitioners' willingness to sell. Since the authorities failed to take action within the statutory period, the court held that the reservation lapsed. The court directed the State to issue a notification under Section 127(2) within three months, failing which the land would be deemed released from reservation.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Purchase Notice - The petitioners issued a notice under Section 127 on 2nd February 2009 to the municipal council, which was received, but no action was taken for acquisition. The court held that the notice substantially complied with the requirements and the reservation lapsed due to inaction. (Paras 2-6)

B) Town Planning - Validity of Notice - Section 127 of MRTP Act, 1966 - The respondent council contended that the notice was not in proper form, but the court found that the notice clearly indicated the land and the petitioners' intention to sell, and the authorities had sufficient opportunity to act. (Paras 3-5)

C) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Section 127 of MRTP Act, 1966 - The court directed the State to issue a notification under Section 127(2) within three months, failing which the reservation would lapse and the land would be released. (Para 6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notice issued under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was valid and whether the reservation of the petitioners' land lapsed due to failure of the respondents to take steps for acquisition within the statutory period.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The State is directed to issue a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act within three months from the date of the judgment. If no notification is issued within that period, the reservation shall stand lapsed and the land shall be released from reservation.

Law Points

  • Lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of MRTP Act
  • 1966
  • Notice under Section 127
  • Compliance with statutory requirements
  • Inaction by planning authority
  • Purchase notice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 188

WRIT PETITION NO. 6974 OF 2010

2015-08-24

NARESH H. PATIL, S.B. SHUKRE

2015:BHC-AS:19869-DB

S.S.Patwardhan I/b. Aparna More for the petitioners, P.G.Sawant, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2, N.N.Bhadrashete for respondent No.3

Shri Ramchandra Shankar Joshi and others

The State of Maharashtra and others

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking release of land from reservation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondents to release the land from reservation and to issue notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act.

Filing Reason

The respondents failed to take action on the purchase notice issued under Section 127, leading to lapsing of reservation.

Issues

Whether the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was valid and in compliance with statutory requirements. Whether the reservation of the petitioners' land lapsed due to inaction of the respondents.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners: The notice under Section 127 was issued and received; no action taken; reservation lapsed. Respondent No.3: The notice did not conform to basic requirements of Section 127; hence no lapsing.

Ratio Decidendi

A notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act need not be in a particular form; substantial compliance is sufficient. If the planning authority fails to take steps for acquisition within the statutory period after receipt of such notice, the reservation lapses.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners contend that on 2nd February 2009, a notice was issued under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. In the present case, the said notice does not conform to the basic requirements. We are of the view that the notice issued by the petitioners substantially complies with the requirements of section 127 of the Act of 1966.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay in 2010. The court reserved judgment on 24th July 2015 and pronounced on 24th August 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 127, 127(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Lapsing of Land Reservation Due to Inaction by Municipal Authorities Under Section 127 of MRTP Act, 1966. The court held that a purchase notice under Section 127 substantially complied with requirements and ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Gratuity Petition with Weekly Holidays Counted as Worked Days and Interest at 10%. Employee entitled to additional gratuity based on retrospective pay revision and interest for delayed payment under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1...