Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed by an agriculturist challenging the reservation of his land for a primary school under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The background involves a development plan initially finalised in 1966, with a revision effective in 1987 maintaining the reservation. In 2013, a notice was issued under Section 26(1) of the MRTP Act proposing further revision. The petitioner served a notice under Section 127(1) in May 2015, urging the purchase of the property. The revision was finalised in January 2017, before the expiry of the 24-month notice period under an amended provision. The petitioner argued that the reservation lapsed in May 2017 due to the planning authority's failure to acquire the land within the prescribed period. The legal issue centered on whether such a notice lapses upon the finalisation of a revised development plan, with conflicting decisions by co-equal benches of the High Court. One set of decisions supported the petitioner's contention that the reservation lapses if no acquisition steps are taken, while another set held that a revised plan provides a fresh starting point for the Section 127 period. The court noted that these decisions did not consider the distinction of whether the notice was served before or after plan revision, and certain observations by a Full Bench were also unaddressed. Arguments included the petitioner's reliance on precedents like Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave & Ors. and Sadashiv Tryambak Rajebahadur & Ors., while the planning authority cited Salim Nizam Sanadi & Ors. and Shri. Amuksidha Shrikant Majge and Anr. The court's analysis highlighted the prima facie conflict and the need for resolution by a larger bench under Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The decision involved referring the petition to a larger bench, as the conflict could not be resolved by a Division Bench, and the matter was clubbed with another petition for this purpose. The judgment does not provide a final holding on the merits but directs further proceedings before a larger bench.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Section 127 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Conflict of Decisions - The petitioner's land was reserved for a primary school in the development plan, and a notice under Section 127(1) was served in 2015 before the revision of the plan was finalised in 2017. The petitioner contended that the reservation lapsed in 2017 due to the planning authority's failure to acquire the land within 24 months. The court noted conflicting decisions by co-equal benches on whether such a notice lapses upon revision of the plan. Held that the matter required resolution by a larger bench due to the prima facie conflict and unconsidered observations by a Full Bench. (Paras 2-15) B) Civil Procedure - Reference to Larger Bench - Rule 8 Chapter I Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 - The Division Bench, upon identifying a conflict between two sets of decisions by co-equal benches on the interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, referred the writ petition to a larger bench under Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The conflict pertained to whether a notice under Section 127(1) served before plan revision lapses upon finalisation of the revised plan. Held that the matter should be heard by a bench of more than two judges to resolve the conflict. (Paras 14-15)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the reservation of land lapses under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 when a notice under Section 127(1) is served before the finalisation of a revised development plan, and the planning authority fails to take steps to acquire the property within the prescribed period, despite the revision being finalised before the expiry of that period.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The writ petition was referred to a larger bench under Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, due to a conflict of decisions by co-equal benches on the interpretation of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The matter was clubbed with Writ Petition No.5180 of 2022 for this purpose.
