High Court Allows Petition for Dereservation of Land Due to Non-Acquisition. Reservation Lapsed as Authorities Failed to Act Within Ten Years Under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 252
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the legal heirs of Petitioners, seeking to dereserve land in Jalna that had been reserved for a primary school and playground. The petitioners claimed ownership of land bearing Survey No.170A, which was reserved in the development plan sanctioned on 17.05.1985. They argued that the authorities had failed to acquire the land within ten years as mandated by the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, despite multiple notices served under Section 127 of the Act. The respondents contended that the reservation was still valid due to a second revised development plan sanctioned in 2013. The court analyzed the timeline of events, noting that the original reservation had not been acted upon within the required timeframe, leading to the conclusion that the land had automatically been dereserved. The court emphasized the statutory rights of the petitioners and ruled in their favor, directing the state to publish a notification confirming the dereservation. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in terms of the petitioners' prayers for dereservation.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Dereservation of Land - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127 - Petitioners sought to dereserve land reserved for public purposes as authorities failed to acquire within ten years. Court held that failure to acquire within the statutory period resulted in automatic dereservation of the land, thus granting the petitioners' request (Paras 14).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the reservation of land for public purposes lapsed due to non-acquisition within the stipulated time under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to publish a notification under Section 127 of the MRTP Act confirming the dereservation of the subject lands within six months.

Law Points

  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act
  • 1966
  • Reservation of Land
  • Acquisition of Land
  • Deemed Dereservation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 14

Writ Petition No.10093 of 2015

2018-03-21

S.S. Shinde J. , S.M. Gavhane J.

Mr.Mahesh R. Sonawane, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.S.Y.Majahan, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr.S.R.Bagal, Advocate for respondent No.5

Anil Banarasidas Jindal and others

The State of Maharashtra and others

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the reservation of land for public purposes.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to dereserve their land.

Filing Reason

Respondents failed to acquire the land within the statutory period.

Issues

Whether the reservation of land lapsed due to non-acquisition within ten years. Validity of the second revised development plan affecting the original reservation.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the land should be dereserved due to the failure of authorities to acquire it within ten years. Respondents contended that the reservation was still valid under the second revised development plan.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the failure to acquire the reserved land within the statutory period resulted in automatic dereservation, affirming the petitioners' rights under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.

Judgment Excerpts

The reservation of the subject lands has been lapsed and the subject lands are deemed to have been dereserved. We direct the respondent/State to publish a notification under Sub-Section (2) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, as expeditiously as possible.

Procedural History

The petition was filed in 2015, and after hearings and submissions from both parties, the judgment was pronounced on 21.03.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 127, Section 31
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Territorial Jurisdiction in Writ Petition Case. The court affirmed that jurisdiction under Article 226 requires the cause of action to arise within the court's territorial limits.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Environmental Protection Measures in Mining Operations — Key Rulings on Limestone Quarries.