Dnyaneshwar S/o Lahanuji Marotkar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Rajnish R. Vyas, J.)

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that reservation site Nos.25 and 26 in agricultural land situated bearing T.S.Kr. No.46, bearing Survey No.51, admeasuring 1.20 HR for the development plan of the year 2012 of Khapa Municipal Council, Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur has lapsed and land has become available to the petitioner to be developed as otherwise permissible.

The petitioner claims to be an owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing T.S.Kr.No.46, bearing Land Survey No.51, admeasuring 1.20 HR, which falls within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is a Planning Authority for Municipal Council area of Khapa under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1966” for the sake of convenience). Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had prepared a development plan for Khapa Municipal Council area in which the land of the petitioner along with the land of other individuals was shown to have been reserved for various purposes. As regards the petitioner’s land is concerned, in the development plan, which was notified on 02/04/2012 and which came into force on 15/05/2012 in the light of Section 31(1) of the Act of 1966 shown as reserved for Town Hall under Development Plan Site No.25, Play Ground under Development Plan Site No.26 and the remaining land for Industrial Zone purpose. According to the petitioner, since the year 2012, no steps were taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to acquire the land for public purpose for which it was reserved.

As the period of ten years had lapsed from the date on which the development plan, as stated above, came into force and as the acquisition was not done, the petitioner on 15/01/2024 issued a notice to respondent No.3, thereby calling upon to purchase the land or permit him to use the same for residential purpose. This notice under section 127 of the Act of 1966 was duly acknowledged by respondent No.3 on 15/01/2024. According to the petitioner, in spite of receipt of notice, since no steps were taken by the respondents, rights crystallized in his favour, since the land in question was not acquired within the statutory period of 24 months from the date of the notice. Thus, the present petition.

Respondent No.3 in pursuance of notice of this Court, appeared and filed its reply dated 03/07/2026 in which neither the receipt of the notice dated 15/01/2024 was disputed, nor the applicability of section 127 of the Act of 1966. At page-27 of the record, respondent No.3 admitted that no action was taken by respondent No.3 towards the acquisition of the land. Even the dates relied upon by the petitioner regarding notification on which the revised development plan was sanctioned and came into force were not disputed.

In this background, considering the stand taken by respondent No.3, which supports the contentions of the petitioner, and as no steps were taken to acquire the land in question within the statutory limit prescribed i.e. ten years on which the development plan came into force and 24 months from the date of receipt of notice, we are inclined to allow the present petition. Consequently, the following order is passed.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.