Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of agricultural land in Beed town, challenged the continuing reservation of their land as a garden in the development plan of Beed, finalized in 1988. The land was designated as reservation No. 78 (garden). After no steps were taken for acquisition, the petitioners served a purchase notice under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on 27.06.2002. The Director of Town Planning confirmed the notice. The Municipal Council initially forwarded a proposal to the Collector for acquisition but, due to lack of budgetary provision and refusal by banks to lend funds, the general body resolved inability to deposit the demanded amount, and the Collector returned the proposal by April 2003. No further steps under Section 126 were taken within one year of the confirmation of the purchase notice. Despite this, the State Government informed the Municipal Council by letter dated 13.11.2006 that the reservation had not lapsed and suggested private negotiations. The petitioners jointly sought permission to develop the land in 2006, but it was denied. After a civil dispute among the petitioners was resolved in 2016, they submitted a complete development proposal on 02.05.2016 under Section 44 of the MRTP Act. No decision was communicated within 30 days, leading to a deemed permission under Section 45(5). When the petitioners' representation was rejected on 12.06.2017, they filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the 2006 letter, a declaration that the reservation had lapsed, and a direction for grant of development permission. During pendency, the Municipal Council published a draft revised development plan on 12.09.2017, proposing to revise the reservation as No. 60 for recreational activities and open space, and argued that the petition had become infructuous. The High Court, noting that the factual sequence was admitted, held that the failure to take steps under Section 126 within one year of the confirmed purchase notice triggered the automatic lapse of the reservation under Section 49(7). The subsequent inability to acquire due to financial constraints and the publication of a revised draft plan could not defeat the crystallized rights. The Court further held that the petitioners were entitled to deemed development permission under Section 45(5) because no decision had been communicated within the statutory period. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed; the impugned letter dated 13.11.2006 was quashed, the reservation was declared lapsed, and the Municipal Council was directed to grant necessary development permission. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Town and Country Planning - Reservation Lapse - Section 49(7), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Automatic lapse on failure to acquire - If after confirmation of purchase notice, the appropriate authority does not take steps under Section 126 within one year, the reservation lapses by operation of law - Admitted facts showed that purchase notice served, confirmed, and no steps for acquisition were taken; held that reservation lapsed despite subsequent attempts to acquire land and publication of revised plan (Paras 3-5, 9). B) Town and Country Planning - Development Permission - Sections 44, 45(5), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Deemed grant when no decision communicated within 30 days - Petitioners submitted a complete application for development on 02.05.2016 and no decision was communicated within the statutory period; held that permission is deemed to have been granted under Section 45(5) and entitled to development (Paras 5, 9). C) Town and Country Planning - Revised Development Plan - Section 26, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Effect on lapsed reservation - Mere publication of a draft revised plan does not revive a reservation that has already lapsed under Section 49(7) nor render the petition infructuous; rights crystallized by statutory lapse cannot be defeated by subsequent plan revision (Paras 6-7, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reservation on the petitioners' land lapsed under Section 49(7) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 due to failure of the Municipal Council to initiate acquisition proceedings under Section 126 within one year of confirmation of the purchase notice. Whether the petitioners are entitled to deemed development permission under Section 45(5) of the MRTP Act since no decision was communicated on their application for development. Whether the subsequent publication of a draft revised development plan rendered the petition infructuous.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It quashed and set aside the impugned letter dated 13.11.2006 issued by the State Government. It declared that the reservation No.78 (garden) on the petitioners' land had lapsed under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act. It directed respondent No.3-Municipal Council to grant necessary permission to develop the land by approving the layouts as per the application deemed granted under Section 45(5) of the MRTP Act. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Failure to initiate acquisition proceedings under Section 126 within one year of confirmed purchase notice leads to automatic lapse of reservation under Section 49(7) of MRTP Act
- Deemed grant of development permission under Section 45(5) when Planning Authority fails to communicate decision within 30 days
- Revised development plan does not revive lapsed reservation or defeat crystallized rights
