Petitioner challenged non-acquisition of her land reserved in development plan. Court held mere letters requesting acquisition do not satisfy statutory requirement of steps under Section 127 MRTP Act.
Writ petition allowed; impugned letters quashed; land deemed dereserved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2006
Mrs. Suneeta G. Mhatre, ) Age 65 years, Occ.: Household, ) R/at “Suyash”, Opp. Jain Mandir, ) Tembi Naka, Thane (W). ).. .. Petitioner.
VERSUS
Mr. D. K. Ghaisas for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Rao for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and J. H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED : 18TH OCTOBER, 2008.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.):
The petitioner is an owner of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 78/2 situated at Kalyan (Adharwadi), Bhiwandi Shahad Road, Dist. Thane.
3
Court and also sought quashing of orders contained in Exhibits “E” and “G” to the petition.
" 127. Lapsing of reservations.- If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final regional plan, or final development plan comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are not commenced within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice on the planning authority, development or as the case may be, appropriate authority to that effect; and if within six months from the date of the service of such
4
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 thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.”
From bare perusal of this section it becomes clear that the steps mentioned in the provisions are relatable to the acquisition and the process of acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act starts with the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
5
126 of the MRTP Act and submits that if the authorities want to acquire the land they have three options. The first option is by agreement by paying an amount agreed to. The second option would not be available in this case and the third option would be by making an application to the State Government for acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, he contends once an application is made to the State Government it should be considered that the steps as mentioned under Section 127 of the MRTP Act have been taken. For the reasons given by us hereinabove, this argument cannot be accepted.
"54. When we conjointly read Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act, it is apparent that the legislative intent is to expeditiously acquire the land reserved under the Town Planning Scheme and, therefore, various periods have been prescribed for acquisition of the owner's property. The intent and purpose of the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 has been well explained in Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay case. If the acquisition is left for time immemorial in the hands of the authority concerned by
6
simply making an application to the State Government for acquiring such land under the LA Act, 1894, then the authority will simply move such an application and if no such notification is issued by the State Government for one year of the publication of the draft regional plan under Section 126(2) read with Section 6 of the LA Act, wait for the notification to be issued by the State Government by exercising suo motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 126; and till then no declaration could be made under Section 127 as regards lapsing of reservation and contemplated declaration of land being released and available for the landowner for his utilisation as permitted under Section 127. Section 127 permitted inaction on the part of the acquisition authorities for a period of 10 years for dereservation of the land. Not only that, it gives a further time for either to acquire the land or to take steps for acquisition of the land within a period of six months from the date of service of notice by the landowner for dereservation. The steps towards commencement of the acquisition in such a situation would necessarily be the steps for acquisition and not a step which may not result into acquisition and merely for the purpose of seeking time so that Section 127 does not come into operation.
7
the land. On construction of Section 126 which provides for acquisition of the land under the MRTP Act, it is apparent that the steps for acquisition of the land would be issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act. Clause (c) of Section 126(1) merely provides for a mode by which the State Government can be requested for the acquisition of the land under Section 6 of the LA Act. The making of an application to the State Government for acquisition of the land would not be a step for acquisition of the land under reservation. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 leaves it open to the State Government either to permit the acquisition or not to permit, considering the public purpose for which the acquisition is sought for by the authorities. Thus, the steps towards acquisition would really commence when the State Government permits the acquisition and as a result thereof publishes the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act.
Even in the present case there is not even a resolution by the Corporation as
to whether the land has to be acquired or not. Therefore on the basis of the letter written by the respondent to the Collector the rights of the petitioner
8
could not be defeated.
Sd/-
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
Sd/-
(J. H. BHATIA, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a letter requesting acquisition constitutes a step under Section 127 of MRTP Act
Whether steps towards acquisition commence only upon issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act
Whether prior judicial precedent established that mere application to State Government suffices as acquisition steps
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Girnar Traders v/s State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶26
(2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 555
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Suneeta G. Mhatre
The Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
Bilal Nazki
J. H. Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
