Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a company engaged in real estate, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking a declaration that the reservation on its land under the Nagpur Development Plan had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and challenging the subsequent land acquisition award dated 29.10.2025. The land comprised three Khasra numbers—38, 39/2, and 39/3—at Mouza Chikhli (Khurd), Nagpur, reserved for 'Drainage and Sewerage Disposal Scheme' vide Reservation No. S-162. The development plan came into force on 21.09.2001. On 20.06.2014, the petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 127 on the Planning Authority, claiming no acquisition steps had been taken. The Planning Authority rejected the notice on 06.12.2014 because the 7/12 extracts enclosed showed different owners: Khasra No.38 in the name of a partnership firm, Khasra No.39/2 in the name of another company, and Khasra No.39/3 in the name of the petitioner company. The petitioner did not cure the defect or challenge the rejection for over ten years. In 2025, land acquisition proceedings commenced and an award was passed on 29.10.2025. The petitioner then filed the writ petition claiming the reservation had lapsed automatically after one year from the notice. The respondents argued that the notice was invalid due to the title discrepancy and that the petitioner's inaction for a decade barred the claim. The High Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Madanlal Zumberlal Nahar v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Beed, which held that reservation does not lapse automatically and a valid notice under Section 127 is a precondition. The Court found the purchase notice suffered from a major defect as it covered three survey numbers in three different titles, and the defect was never cured. The Court held that the argument of automatic lapsing was against settled law and that the petitioner's conduct—failing to respond to the rejection or challenge it for ten years—was another reason for the petition to fail. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the award was not quashed.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Lapsing of Reservation - Valid Notice Precondition - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127 - The petitioner sought declaration that reservation lapsed automatically after one year from service of purchase notice. The Full Bench in Madanlal Zumberlal Nahar v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Beed held that reservation does not lapse automatically and a valid notice under Section 127 is a precondition. The High Court applied this principle and held that the argument of automatic lapsing was not in accordance with law (Paras 24-28). B) Town Planning - Validity of Purchase Notice - Multiple Owners - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 127 - The purchase notice dated 20.06.2014 covered three Khasra numbers, but the 7/12 extracts showed different entities as owners: partnership firm, a company, and another company. The Planning Authority rejected the notice on 06.12.2014 for lack of clear title. The High Court held the notice suffered from a major defect and was invalid (Paras 8-9, 27-28). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Not mentioned - The petitioner neither cured the defect nor challenged the rejection of the purchase notice for over 10 years. The High Court observed that the petition should fail on account of the petitioner's conduct and inordinate delay (Paras 11, 23, 29).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the purchase notice dated 20.06.2014 was a valid notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; whether the reservation of the land lapsed automatically; whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the purchase notice was invalid due to the title discrepancy and that reservation did not lapse automatically. The petitioner's inordinate delay and failure to challenge the rejection of the notice also disentitled relief. The land acquisition award dated 29.10.2025 was not quashed.
Law Points
- Reservation under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966 does not lapse automatically
- a valid notice under Section 127 is a precondition
- validity of notice depends on facts
- purchase notice covering multiple survey numbers with different owners is defective
- inordinate delay and failure to challenge rejection of notice disentitles petitioner.
