Parasram Ratanlalji Upadhyay & Anr. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

JUDGMENT (Per : Rajnish R. Vyas)

A prayer made in this petition is for grant of declaration that reservation has lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.

Heard learned respective counsels.

The learned counsel for petitioners argued that the petitioners are owners and person interested in land bearing Survey No. 185/6, total ad-measuring 0.46 H.R., of village Warud Part-2, Tahsil Warud, District Amravati and the said land was shown reserved for garden vide Reservation No. 59, in the final development plan of the city of Warud. The plan was sanctioned by the State Government and published vide Notification which came into force on 1.9.2005 in the official gazette. On 08.02.2024, the petitioners through their counsel Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter, would be referred as “the Act of 1966”, for sake of brevity) and called upon to take steps for acquisition of the land and make arrangement for the payment of the land as per market value or give no objection to applicants for development of the said land, otherwise permissible in case of adjacent land. Along with the notice, 7/12 extract, and part plan of development plan.

The notice was duly served upon the respondents on 12.02.2024. Thereafter, on 22.2.2024, the Directorate of Town Planning, Pune, informed the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Warud, District Amravati that as the notice under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 has been issued, respondent no. 2 is under an obligation to initiate proceedings for acquisition. Accordingly, the respondent Municipal Council on 22.2.2024, issued letter to the counsel of the petitioner informing him that as the current measurement sheet (‘K’ prat, 7/12 extract) and Vakalatnama was not filed, notice issued is defective.

The communication dated 22.2.2024 was then replied by the counsel on 6.3.2024 in which it was stated that the measurement sheet is not a document of title and the notice under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 can be served through advocate also. On 15.3.2024 updated 7/12 extract, Vakalatnama, measurement sheet and the judgment relied upon was supplied by the petitioners to respondent no. 2.

In pursuance with the notice issued by this counsel, respondent no. 2 Municipal Council appeared and filed its reply on 29.7.2026. It was stated that the development plan under Warud Development Scheme was sanctioned on 1.9.2005 which came into force on the same day and in respect of excluded/left out portion, it was sanctioned on 6.6.2007 which came into force on 16.7.2007. According to respondent no. 2, the statutory period of two years was computed from the date of service of the notice expired on 11.2.2026. It was stated by respondent no. 3 that in pursuance to the purchase notice, on 8.2.2024, Resolution No. 280 was passed in the administrative meeting of the Municipal Council for acquisition of 0.46 H.R. land out of 1.70 H.R. land and further proposal for land acquisition was submitted to the District Collector, Amravati on 6.5.2024.

It was stated that as at the relevant time, the operating body of the Municipal Council was not in existence and the Administrator was working, the Resolution dated 15.3.2024 was passed in administrative meeting. Finally, it was argued that land acquisition proposal is pending before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Warud for carrying out the joint measurement and the joint measurement conducted on 24.4.2026, report of which is awaited.

It is in this background, we have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the record of the case.

Though, initially, stand was taken through communication filed on record that notice under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 was defective since the advocate did not file the Vakalatnama and measurement sheet was not produced, subsequently, by filing affidavit, the counter arguments were narrowed down to the issue that after receipt of purchase notice, immediately, the Resolution was passed and a proposal for land acquisition was submitted to the District collector which was a step of acquisition.

As regard lapsing of 10 years from the date of publication of final plan and receipt of purchase notice is not disputed, issue which remains to be answered is whether passing of Resolution dated 15.3.2024 after receipt of purchase notice on 8.2.2024 can be said to be a step of acquisition. Suffice it to say that the issue has been put to rest by the authoritative pronouncement of judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, reported in (2007)7 SCC 555. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically stated that the requisite step should be “a step of acquisition of land” and not a “step for acquisition of land”. Passing of Resolution, conducting joint measurement would be a ‘step for acquisition of land’ and would not be ‘a step of acquisition of land’. In that case, the revised development plan was sanctioned on 16.9.1991 and period of 10 years expired on 15.9.2001, the purchase notice was given by the appellant/owners on 15.3.2002 which was received by the authorities on 19.3.2002. Thus, under second part of Section 127 of the Act of 1966, the land was either required to be acquired or steps in that regard were to be commencing by 18.9.2002. On 9.9.2002, Improvement Committee passed Resolution recommending the Municipal Council to initiate acquisition proceedings. On 13.9.2002, without there being any Resolution, sanctioned the acquisition for taking the steps for acquisition, an application was sent by the Chief Engineer to State Government for initiating proceedings under Section 126 of the Act of 1966. The Hon’ble Apex Court, then held that sending of an application under Section 126(1)(c) did not constitute a requisite “steps for acquisition contemplated by Section 127”.

In the present case also, after purchase notice, the Resolution is passed, hence, the issue is squarely covered.

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition and therefore, following order is passed:

ii) The State Government is directed to issue Notification under Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, expeditiously.

iii) Petition is disposed of, accordingly.