AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) . Heard Shri. Yash A. Kullarwar, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri. D. P. Thakare, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent/State and Shri. Tejas S. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
By the present petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the reservation affecting the land bearing Khasra No.187/1/A admeasuring area 1.46 H.R. situated at Mouza Khanji, Tahsil Warora, District Chandrapur (hereinafter referred to as “the aforesaid land” for the sake of brevity), has lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as, “the MRTP Act” for the sake of brevity). A consequential declaration is also sought, permitting the petitioner to develop the aforesaid land in accordance with law.
The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid land. Under the Development Plan of Warora, which came into force in the year 2012, different portions of the aforesaid land came to be reserved for a Primary School and Playground, Market, and Middle School with Playground. It is the petitioner’s case that, despite the expiry of more than ten years from the coming into force of the Development Plan, the respondents failed to acquire the aforesaid land in accordance with Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
The petitioner, therefore, issued a purchase notice dated 20.10.2023 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which is at record page No.18 (Annexure-C), calling upon respondent No.2 - Warora Municipal Council, to acquire the aforesaid land. Along with the purchase notice, the petitioner furnished the necessary documents including the revenue record evidencing his ownership. It is an admitted position that the purchase notice was received by respondent No.2 on 20.10.2023.
After receipt of the purchase notice, respondent No.2 did not commence acquisition proceedings. Instead, by its communication dated 26.09.2025 addressed to the petitioner, respondent No.2 offered acquisition by way of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or Accommodation Reservation. The petitioner, by his reply dated 29.09.2025, declined to both the options and requested respondent No.2 to either acquire the aforesaid land in accordance with law or release it from reservation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Since no further steps were taken, the petitioner has approached this Court.
The reservation of the aforesaid land and the receipt of the purchase notice dated 20.10.2023 have not been disputed. Respondent No.2 has also admitted issuance of a communication offering TDR and Accommodation Reservation to the petitioner, which was declined. However, respondent No.2 has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that acquisition proceedings under Section 126 of the MRTP Act were commenced within the statutory period.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, the question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents have taken the statutory steps contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act within the period prescribed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act so as to prevent the reservation from lapsing.
The controversy involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. Section 127 of the MRTP Act strikes a balance between the power of Planning Authority to reserve private land for a public purpose and the corresponding right of the landowner not to be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his property indefinitely. Where the land reserved under a sanctioned Development Plan is not acquired within ten years from the date on which the Development Plan comes into force, the owner or any person interested in the land becomes entitled to serve a purchase notice. If, within the statutory period prescribed after service of such notice the land is neither acquired nor steps contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation stands lapsed by operation of law and the land becomes available to the owner for development as otherwise permissible. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1, has explained the scope and effect of Section 127 in paragraph 133 of the judgment as under:
“133.However, in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified is not acquired by agreement within 10 years from the date on which final regional plan or final development plan comes into force or if declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act not published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner any person interested in the land may serve notice upon such authority to that effect and if within 12 months from the date of service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps, as aforesaid, are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land would become available the owner for the purposes of development. The defaults, their consequences and even exceptions thereto have been specifically stated in the State Act. For a period of 11 years, the land would remain under reservation or designation, as the case may be, in terms Section 127 of the MRTP Act (10 years + notice period).”
The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur vs. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and others, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 627, wherein it has been held that -
“42.We are further of the view that the majority in Girnar Traders (2) [Girnar Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555] had rightly observed that steps towards the acquisition would really commence when the State Government takes active steps for the acquisition of the particular piece of land which leads to publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Any other interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act will make the provisions wholly unworkable and leave the landowner at the mercy of the Planning Authority and the State Government.
43.The expression “no steps as aforesaid” used in Section 127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the context of the provisions of the 1894 Act and mere passing of a resolution by the Planning Authority or sending of a letter to the Collector or even the State Government cannot be treated as commencement of the proceedings for the acquisition of land under the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act. By enacting Sections 125 to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State Legislature has made a definite departure from the scheme of acquisition enshrined in the 1894 Act. But a holistic reading of these provisions makes it clear that while engrafting the substance of some of the provisions of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and leaving out other provisions, the State Legislature has ensured that the landowners/other interested persons, whose land is utilised for execution of the development plan/town planning scheme, etc., are not left high and dry. This is the reason why time-limit of ten years has been prescribed in Section 31(5) and also under Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act for the acquisition of land, with a stipulation that if the land is not acquired within six months of the service of notice under Section 127 or steps are not commenced for acquisition, reservation of the land will be deemed to have lapsed. Shri Naphade's interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127, if accepted, will lead to absurd results and the landowners will be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation. That would tantamount to depriving the citizens of their property without the sanction of law and would result in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”
Thus, the expression “steps” occurring in Section 127 of he MRTP Act refers to the statutory steps contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. Mere administrative correspondence, passing of resolutions or other preliminary actions, not culminating in commencement of acquisition proceedings in the manner prescribed by law, cannot defeat the statutory consequence of lapsing under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the Development Plan came into force in the year 2012 and that the petitioner served a purchase notice dated 20.10.2023 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The receipt of the said purchase notice has been expressly admitted by respondent No.2 in its reply. It is equally not in dispute that instead of initiating acquisition proceedings under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, respondent No.2 merely called upon the petitioner to consider acquisition by way of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or Accommodation Reservation. The petitioner declined both the options and reiterated his request that the respondents either acquire the aforesaid land in accordance with law or release it from reservation.
Significantly, respondent No.2 has not placed on record any material whatsoever to demonstrate that a declaration under Section 126(2) or Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act came to be issued or that acquisition proceedings were commenced within the statutory period prescribed under Section 127. The reply is conspicuously silent on this material aspect. On the contrary, the conduct of respondent No.2 in offering TDR and Accommodation Reservation clearly indicates that the purchase notice was acted upon and treated as valid. Such correspondence cannot be equated with commencement of acquisition proceedings within the meaning of Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
Once, the statutory period expired without acquisition of the aforesaid land or commencement of acquisition proceedings in the manner contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, the consequence contemplated under Section 127 inevitably followed. The reservation affecting the aforesaid land stood lapsed by operation of law, and the petitioner became entitled to develop the land in accordance with the permissible user under the Development Plan.
The material events emerging from the record may be conveniently summarized as under:
| Relevant Event | Date / Position |
| Development Plan came into force | 28.12.2012 |
| Expiry of ten-year period | 28.12.2022 |
| Purchase notice issued | 20.10.2023 |
| Purchase notice received by respondent No.2 | 20.10.2023 |
| Respondent No.2 offered TDR / Accommodation Reservation | 26.09.2025 |
| Petitioner declined the offer | 29.09.2025 |
| Expiry of statutory period under Section 127 | 20.10.2025 |
| Declaration under Section 126(2)/(4) | Not issued |
| Acquisition proceedings under Section 126 | Not commenced |
The aforesaid chronology unmistakably demonstrates that although the petitioner duly exercised his statutory rights by serving the purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the respondents failed to acquire the aforesaid land or commence acquisition proceedings in the manner contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act within the statutory period. The offer of Transferable Development Rights or Accommodation Reservation, made nearly at the end of the statutory period, cannot be construed as commencement of acquisition proceedings so as to defeat the statutory consequence prescribed by Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The reservation affecting the aforesaid land, therefore, stood lapsed by operation of law. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :
O R D E R
The writ petition is allowed.
It is declared that the reservation affecting the land bearing Khasra No.187/1/A, situated at Mouza Khanji, Tahsil Warora and District Chandrapur, admeasuring area 1.46 H.R., reserved under the sanctioned Development Plan for Primary School and Playground, Market, and Middle School with Playground, has lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
Respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra shall publish the notification contemplated under Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, recording the lapsing of the aforesaid reservation, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.