Allowed

Mr. Arun Kashinath Shirode v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretray and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2021WP/9906/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the reservation of land for a commercial complex lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act as authorities failed to acquire the land within ten years of the plan coming into force. Measuring the land did not count as acquisition steps. The petitioner is entitled to private use. The State Government is directed to notify in the Gazette within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to use land for private purpose; State directed to notify lapsing of reservation in Official Gazette within eight weeks.

Mr. Arun Kashinath Shirode Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by MUGDHA 1 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt MUGDHA M M PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2022.01.03 16:37:39 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

1 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9906 OF 2016

¶4

Mr. Arun Kashinath Shirode
Residing at Gulmohar Archade,
2nd Floor, Opposite Kulkarni Garden,
Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422 002.… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra
through Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya – 400 032.

¶7

1A. The Nashik Municipal Corporation
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sharanpur Road,
Nashik – 400 002.

¶8

2. The Commissioner
Nashik Municipal Corporation,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sharanpur Road,
Nashik – 422 002.

¶9

3. The Municipal Secretary
Nashik Municipal Corporation,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sharanpur Road,
Nashik – 422 002.

¶10

4. The Joint Director of Town Planning
(Nashik Division)
1st Floor, office of the -
Divisional Revenue Commissioner,
ISP Road, Nashik Road.

¶11

 1 of 23

¶12

Mugdha

¶13

2 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶14

5. Asst. Director of Town Planning
(Nashik Division)
1st Floor, office of the -
Divisional Revenue Commissioner,
ISP Road, Nashik Road.… Respondents

¶15

Mr. Nikhil Wable a/w Mr. Priyank Daga and Mr. Gaurav Suralkar i/by
Jayakar and Partners for the Petitioner.
Mr.K.S. Thorat, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Subhash V. Gutte for Respondents No.1-A, 2 and 3.

¶16

CORAM:A.A. SAYED AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE:21ST DECEMBER 2021

¶17

PER COURT:

¶18

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive

¶19

service.

¶20

2.By consent of the learned counsel for the parties and at their
request, matter is heard finally.

¶21

3.By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶22

India, the Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus against the
Respondents that the Reservation No.368-A for Commercial Zone reserved
in the final development plan of City of Nashik in respect of Survey

¶23

 2 of 23

¶24

Mugdha

¶25

3 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶26

No.806/3C/2A, situate at Village Nashik within the Nashik Municipal
Corporation (the “said land”) has lapsed by operation of Section 127 of
the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (the “MRTP Act”) and
by virtue of the said lapsing of reservation, Petitioner is entitled to use the
said land for his private purpose.

¶27

4. Brief facts are as under:

¶28

Petitioner is the owner of the said land and is in possession of
documents such as 7/12 extracts and other revenue records for
ownership/title, occupation and possession of land. The Respondent-
Corporation had sanctioned part of the development plan of Nashik under
Section 31 of the MRTP Act vide Notification dated 28th June, 1993 which
came into force with effect from 16th November, 1993. By another
Notification dated 15th May, 1995 issued by the Urban Development
Department, the first Respondent republished part of the development
plan(the “said development plan”) which has come into force with effect
from 29th June, 1995 . By the said development plan, the said land was
reserved for commercial complex vide Reservation No.368A.

¶29

 3 of 23

¶30

Mugdha

¶31

4 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶32

5.On 2nd November, 1995 , Respondent No.2 published a notice

¶33

under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, pursuant to which it was proposed
that the land which was reserved for “commercial complex” was proposed
to be deleted and was proposed to be shown as “Commercial Zone”.

¶34

6.Pursuant to the above notice, a public notice was also
published in the local newspaper on 7th January, 1996 by the Nashik

¶35

Municipal Corporation informing about the proposed modification under
Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act.

¶36

7.The Taluka Officer (Land Record Department) addressed a
letter dated 1st April, 2010 to Petitioner and informed Petitioner that 16th
April, 2010 was the date fixed for measurement of the land requesting
Petitioner to remain present for the same.

¶37

8.Petitioner’s submission is that the said land was never

¶38

acquired by Respondents No.2 and 3 for the purpose of Commercial Zone.

¶39

9.It is the case of the Petitioner that though a period of more

¶40

than ten years has elapsed from the date of development plan, no steps

¶41

 4 of 23

¶42

Mugdha

¶43

5 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶44

have been taken/initiated by Respondents No.2 and 3 for the acquisition
of the said land. He would submit that no declaration has been issued by
Respondent No.1 under Section 126(2) or (4) in respect of the said land.
Therefore, Petitioner through his advocate issued a purchase noticedated
6th March, 2014 to Respondent No.2 alongwith copies of 7/12 extract,
map and documents showing entries as Commercial Zone.

¶45

10.Respondent No.5 vide his letter dated 15th April, 2014 replied
to the above said purchase notice dated 6th March, 2014 and requested
Petitioner to send additional documents as per the list mentioned in the
said letter.

¶46

11.Petitioner vide letter dated 11th July, 2014 submitted the
additional documents requested for by Respondent No.5. It was further
mentioned in the said letter that the purchase noticeas contemplated
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act has been served and received on 6th
March, 2014.

¶47

12.Petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 9th July, 2015 to
Respondents No.1 to 4 informing that he had not received any
communication or notice from the acquiring authority or the planning

¶48

 5 of 23

¶49

Mugdha

¶50

6 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶51

authority about the acquisition of the said land as contemplated in Section
126 read with Section 127 of the MRTP Act and that the stipulated period
of twelve months as contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act had
elapsed on 6th March, 2015.

¶52

13.Thereafter, by letters dated 31st August, 2015 and 1st
September, 2015, addressed to Respondents No.1 to 4, Petitioner once
again reiterated the same, but there was no response and therefore this
Petition came to be filed on 25th February, 2016.

¶53

14.Petitioner submits that from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that
even after a lapse of a period of ten years, the Respondents failed to
initiate any steps for acquisition of the land. It is submitted that in
accordance with Section 127 of the MRTP Act, if the planning authority
has not acquired the land within a period of ten years from the date of
final development plan and no steps are taken from the receipt of
purchase notice within twelve months then the reservation, allotment or
designation shall be deemed to be released from such reservation or
allotment or designation and the land shall become available to the owner
for the purpose of private use/development. He submits that a period of

¶54

 6 of 23

¶55

Mugdha

¶56

7 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶57

ten years has elapsed from the implementation of the draft development
plan and a purchase notice was issued to the Respondents demonstrating
the title and interest of the Petitioner in the said land in question, the
notice was duly received by the Respondents and admittedly no steps were
taken to acquire the land in question within a period of twelve months
from the date of receipt of the notice. Petitioner submits that the period of
twelve months from the receipt of the notice issued under Section 127 of
the MRTP Act completed on 6th March, 2015 and, therefore, the
reservation of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed and is
available to Petitioner, who is the owner of the land for private
use/development. Petitioner submits that in this view of the matter, the
Government should notify the lapsing of the reservation in the official
gazette that the land in question has been deleted from the reservation.
Petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Girnar
Traders vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555.

¶58

15.Respondents No.1-A, 2 and 3 have filed Affidavit-in-Reply
dated 23rd August, 2018 on behalf of Nashik Municipal Corporation. In the
said Affidavit, it is submitted that in the absence of the documents of title
to the land in question, the purchase notice is not valid, that the

¶59

 7 of 23

¶60

Mugdha

¶61

8 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶62

Corporation does not maintain the Revenue records which are under the
control of the Collector. That the said land, in the absence of documents of
title nor measurement map issued by TILR/Survey Officer can not be
identified and inspected. It is further submitted that the question of
measurement of land under acquisition arises only after declaration under
Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (the “Fair
Compensation and Land Acquisition Act”). However, no such declaration
has been issued in this case. Contrary to the procedure, the land
acquisition officer instead of issuing declaration under Section 19 of the
Fair Compensation and Land Acquisition Act has gone ahead with the
measurement of the land which went on for many years. It is submitted
that this was deliberate in order to delay issuing of declaration under
Section 19 of the Fair Compensation and Land Acquisition Act and many
years have been taken for measuring the land for which both the LAO
officer and the City Survey Officer are responsible. It is also submitted that
there is a delay in filing this Petition as Petitioner had given notice on 6th
March, 2014 but the Petition was filed only in the month of February,
2016.

¶63

 8 of 23

¶64

Mugdha

¶65

9 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶66

16.On behalf of Respondent No.1 and 4, Affidavit in Reply dated

¶67

17th September, 2021 has been filed, where it has been submitted as

¶68

under:-

¶69

“2.I say that, the Development Plan of Nashik
Municipal Corporation had been partly sanctioned by
the Government vide Notification No. TPS-1191/35/
CR-88/91/UD-9, dated 28/06/1993 under section 31
(1) of The Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning
Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act') & the
same had come into force with effect from 16th
November, 1993. The Excluded part of said
Development Plan had been Sanctioned by
Government vide notification TPS-1194/940/CR-48/
UD-9, Dated 15/05/1995 under section 31 (1) of the
said Act & the same had come into force with effect
th
from 29 June 1995 .

¶70

I further say that, as per this sanctioned
Development Plan, the land bearing S.No.806 (Pt.)
was shown reserved as Site No.368-A for"Commercial
Complex". The total Area under reservation was
shown as about 17000 Sq.mt. The suit land bearing S.
No.806/3C/2A is part and parcel of land under
reservation.The Appropriate Authority for acquisition
& development of the said reservation is "Nashik
Municipal Corporation"

¶71

It is submitted that, the Government in the
Urban Development Department vide Notification No.
TPS/1116/C.R.140(A)/2016/UD-9,dated 09/01/2017
has partly sanctioned the Revised Development Plan
of Nashik (hereinafter referred to as "the said Revised

¶72

 9 of 23

¶73

Mugdha

¶74

10 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶75

Development Plan") along with Development Control
and Promotion Regulation under section 31 (1) of the
said Act. The said Revised Development Plan has
come into force with effect from 09/02/2017. The
Excluded part of the said Revised Development Plan
has been Sanctioned by Government vide notification
No. TPS-1116/CR.140(B)/2016/UD-9, Dated
31/12/2018 & the same has come into force with
effect from 01/02/2019.

¶76

As per this said Revised Development Plan, the
land bearing S.No.806(pt.) is reserved for Site No.192
for " Municipal Market". Total Area under reservation
is about 21710 Sq.mt. The Appropriate Authority for
acquisition & development of the said reservation is
"Nashik Municipal Corporation".

¶77

3.

¶78

4.

¶79

5.I say that, from the Exhibit A and B attached
with the petition, it appears that, the Nashik
Municipal Corporation had initiated a modification
proposal under section 37(1) of the said Act to delete
of the Reservation no 368-A “Commercial Complex”
and include the land thereunder in commercial zone
and the notice to that effect had been published in the
Government Gazette and local news paper.

¶80

It is submitted that, as per the record available,
the Government of Maharashtra had refused to accord
sanction to this modification proposal vide its letter
No.TPS-1100/1250/CR92/01/UD-9,Dated 28.9.2001.

¶81

 10 of 23

¶82

Mugdha

¶83

11 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶84

6.I say that, it is seen from the Exhibit-D attached
with the petition that, the Petitioner through his
Advocate, has served Notice dated 06.03.2014 under
section 127 of the said Act on the Respondent No.2.
i.e. Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation.

¶85

7.I say that, most of the contention of Petitioner
in this petition are more specifically related to the
Respondent No.2. i.e. The Municipal Commissioner,
Nashik Municipal Corporation.

¶86

In view of the above mentioned facts and after
considering the say and submission filed by the
Respondent No 2, i.e. the Commissioner, Nashik
Municipal Corporation, the Hon'ble High Court may
pass suitable order as may deem fit and proper.”

¶87

17.An Affidavit-in-Reply dated 29th September, 2021 has also
been filed on behalf of the District Collector, Nashik, wherein apart from
rebutting the allegations/remarks made in the Affidavit of the
Corporation, the following submissions are made :-

¶88

“4)I say that, the land acquisition proceeding of
the aforesaid suit land is in progress before the
Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, No.2, Nashik
under Land Acquisition Case No.379 of 2015 for the
purpose of designated reservation of the Commercial
Complex and following steps has been taken by this
office.

¶89

 11 of 23

¶90

Mugdha

¶91

12 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶92

a.I say that, after receipt of the proposal for
acquisition of the suit land for its designated purpose,
the District Collector, Nashik by his order dated
30.11.2015 has passed the order U/s 3G of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 for acquisition of the suit land. Annexed hereto
and marked as Exhibit - 1is copy of the Order dated
30.11.2015 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble High
Court.

¶93

b.I say that, by Letter dated 21.12.2015 this
office has requested the T.IL.R. Nashik for joint
measurement of the suit land. I say that, with
reference to the above said letter the Estate Manager
of the Respondent Nashik Municipal Corporation by
his Letter dated 30.01.2016 has also requested to the
T.I.L.R, Nashik for joint measurement of the suit land.
Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit '2' Collyare
copies of the Letters dated 21.12.2015 and
30.01.2016 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble High
Court.

¶94

c.I say that, by Letter dated 08.06.2016 the
Estate Manager of the Respondent Nashik Municipal
Corporation has requested the District Collector,
Nashik for change in area of reservation of the suit
land. I say that, in response to above said letter, by
Letter dated 23.08.2016 this office has asked the
Estate Manager of the Respondent Nashik Municipal
Corporation to convey the exact area of reservation
and also asked to submit revised index. Annexed
hereto and marked as Exhibit “3' Collyare copies of
the Letters dated 08.06.2016 and 23.08.2016 for kind
perusal of this Hon'ble High Court.

¶95

 12 of 23

¶96

Mugdha

¶97

13 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶98

d.I say that, on account of pendency of total 85
land acquisition proposals (including suit land) with
respect to reservations concerning Respondent Nashik
Municipal Corporation for joint measurement, this
office has issued a Letter on 22.11.2019 to the Estate
Manager of the Respondent Nashik Municipal
Corporation thereby requesting to complete the joint
measurement of lands in co-ordination with the
T.I.L.R., Nashik. Annexed hereto and marked as
Exhibit '4'is copy of the Letter dated 22.11.2019 to
the Estate Manager for kind perusal of this Hon'ble
High Court.

¶99

e.I say that, in pursuant to Government
Notification dated 01.08.2016, this office by Letter
dated 22.11.2019 had requested the Estate Manager
of Nashik Municipal Corporation for depositing an
amount of Rs.18,40,59,163/- which is 30% amount of
approximate award amount for issuing notification
under section 19 of the Act, 2013. Annexed hereto
and marked as Exhibit '5'is copy of the Letter dated
22.11.2019 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble High
Court.

¶100

f.I say that, by Letter dated 17.09.2021, this
office requested the T.I.L.R., Nashik for completing
the joint measurement of the suit land. Annexed
hereto and marked as Exhibit “6”is copy of the Letter
dated 17.09.2021 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble
High Court.”

¶101

 13 of 23

¶102

Mugdha

¶103

14 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶104

18.We have heard Mr. Nikhil Wable, learned Counsel for
Petitioner, Mr.K.S. Thorat, AGP for the Respondent-State and Mr. Subhash
Gutte for Respondents No.1-A, 2 and 3. With the assistance of the learned
counsel for the parties, we have perused the paper Book of the Writ
Petition and Affidavits in Reply filed by the Respondents. We also place on
record that learned Counsel for the Respondent-Nashik Municipal
Corporation as well as the District Collector, Nashik have on instructions
withdrawn the allegations and the counter allegations made against each
other in the respective Affidavits in Reply.

¶105

19.On considering the facts as placed on record it appears to be
an admitted position that Petitioner is the owner of the land in question.
The development plan has come into force on 29th June, 1995 and the
tenure period has elapsed on 30th June, 2005. That a purchase notice
under section 127 of the MRTP Act was served on 6th March, 2014 and the
same was received by the concerned Respondent and that further action
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was required to be taken by the said
Respondent. Section 127 of the MRTP Act as it stood when the purchase
notice dated 6th March, 2014 was issued by Petitioner is quoted as under :

¶106

 14 of 23

¶107

Mugdha

¶108

15 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶109

Section 127: Lapsing of reservations:

¶110

"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 (for 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 Authority as the case may be, Appropriate
Authority to that effect and if within twelve months
from the date of the 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 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."

¶111

20.A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that

¶112

when any land is reserved, allotted or designated for any public purpose
specified in the Development Plan and if it is not acquired within ten years
from the date on which the final regional plan or final development plan
comes into force, or if proceedings for acquisition of such land under the
MRTP Act or under the Fair Compensation and Land Acquisition Act are

¶113

 15 of 23

¶114

Mugdha

¶115

16 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶116

not commenced, the owner or any person interested in the land, may
serve a notice to the Planning Authority calling upon the Planning
Authority to acquire such land within a period of 12 months from the date
of service of such notice and if the land is not acquired or no steps are
commenced for its acquisition the reservation designation of such land
shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land thereupon shall be deemed
to be released from reservation on such designated land shall become
available to the owner for the purpose of private use or development as
otherwise permissible under the relevant plan. It is well settled that the
proceeding for acquiring the land for the purpose of Section 127 can be
said to have commenced only when a Notification under Section 19 of the
Fair Compensation and Land Acquisition Act is issued.

¶117

21.The facts in the present case clearly demonstrate that the plot
in question was kept under reservation for the purpose of commercial
complex from the commencement of the Development Plan for the city of
Nashik which was brought into effect on 29th June, 1995. Admittedly, for a
period of ten years from the commencement of the Development Plan, the
Respondents No.2 and 3 did not take any steps to acquire the land for the
purpose for which it was kept under reservation. That Petitioner had

¶118

 16 of 23

¶119

Mugdha

¶120

17 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶121

issued a purchase notice dated 6th March, 2014 and the same was received
by the Respondent. The Respondents within a period of twelve months
from the receipt of the purchase notice were required to acquire the land
or take steps for commencement of the acquisition of the land in question.
We observe that despite bald pleadings to that effect, no such steps were
taken to commence the acquisition proceedings. It is therefore, clear that
by plain application of the provisions of Section 127 the reservation of
Petitioners land is deemed to have lapsed and the land had become
available to Petitioner for the purpose of private use/development under
the relevant plan.

¶122

22.The contention as raised on behalf of Respondent No.1A, 2
and 3 that the purchase notice in question is not valid as there are no
documents of title to the land in question as the Corporation does not
maintain records which are under the control of the Collector is
completely fallacious and is not tenable. Section 127 contemplates a
purchase notice to be served by the owner or any person interested in
land. None of the Respondents have disputed that when the purchase
notice was served, Petitioner was not the owner of the land or a person
interested in the land. Admittedly, though measurement has also been

¶123

 17 of 23

¶124

Mugdha

¶125

18 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶126

done, there was no declaration under Section 19 of the Fair Compensation
and Land Acquisition Act. Even Respondents No.1 and 4 have not disputed
the above dates and events in addition to stating that most of the
contentions of Petitioner relate to Nashik Municipal Corporation. Even the
Collector, Nashik has not disputed any of the dates and events and the fact
that no Notification under Section 19 of the Fair Compensation and Land
Acquisition Act has been issued and the joint measurement is pending.

¶127

23.Taking into consideration the above, we are of the view that
there is no substance in the objections raised on behalf of the
Respondents. The provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act clearly apply
to the facts of this case.

¶128

24.Petitioners are justified in relying on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra
(supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in considering the provisions of
Sections 127 of the MRTP Act has held that "the steps for acquisition" as
contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act would be issuance of a
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (now Section 19

¶129

of the Fair Compensation and Land Acquisition Act). Paragraphs 54 to 57
are apt and are quoted as under :

¶130

 18 of 23

¶131

Mugdha

¶132

19 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶133

"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 owners property. The intent and purpose of the
provisions of Sections 126 and 127 has been well
explained in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay case.
If the acquisition is left for time immemorial in the
hands of the authority concerned by 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 is-sued 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.

¶134

 19 of 23

¶135

Mugdha

¶136

20 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶137

55.Providing the period of six months after the
service of notice clearly indicates the intention of the
legislature of an urgency where nothing has been done
in regard to the land reserved under the plan for a
period of 10 years and the owner is deprived of the
utilisation of his land as per the user permissible under
the plan. When mandate is given in a section requiring
compliance within a particular period, the strict
compliance is required therewith as introduction of this
section is with legislative intent to balance the power
of the State of "eminent domain". The State possessed
the power to take or control the property of the owner
for the benefit of public cause, but when the State so
acted, it was obliged to compensate the injured upon
making just compensation. Compensation provided to
the owner is the release of the land for keeping the
land under reservation for 10 years without taking any
steps for acquisition of the same.

¶138

56.The underlying principle envisaged in Section
127 of the MRTP Act is either to utilise the land for the
purpose it is reserved in the plan in a given time or let
the owner utilise the land for the purpose it is
permissible under the town planning scheme. The steps
taken under the section within the time stipulated
should be towards acquisition of land. It is a step of
acquisition of land and not a step for acquisition of
land. It is trite that failure of authorities to take steps
which result in actual commencement of acquisition of
land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and
object of the scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act
by merely moving an application requesting the
government to acquire the land which Government

¶139

 20 of 23

¶140

Mugdha

¶141

21 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶142

may or may not accept. Any step which may or may
not culminate in the step for acquisition cannot be said
to be a step towards acquisition.

¶143

57.It may also be noted that the legislature while
enacting Section 127 has deliberately used the word
"steps" (in plural and not in singular) which are
required to be taken for acquisition of 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 step 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."

¶144

25.In accordance with the aforesaid principles laid down by the

¶145

Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that reservation of the said
land in question had lapsed by operation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

¶146

 21 of 23

¶147

Mugdha

¶148

22 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶149

26. Petitioner has complied with the requirements as demanded

¶150

by the Respondent. Respondent did not take any steps for acquisition of
the said land. The development plan had been notified and come into
effect from 29th June, 1995 and the tenure period has elapsed on 30th
June, 2005. The notice under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act was
published on 2nd November, 1995. The public notice in local newspaper
was published by Nashik Municipal Corporation under Section 37(1) of
the MRTP Act on 7th June, 1996. The Taluka Officer addressed a letter
dated 1st April, 2010 for measurement on 16th April, 2016. Since no steps
were taken by Respondent No.2, Respondent No.3 for acquisition of the
said land, the Petitioner’s advocate issued the mandatory notice under
Section 127 on 6th March, 2014 which was received on the same date. The
Respondent No.5 requested for additional documents on 15th April, 2014
and all the documents were submitted by Petitioner on 11th July, 2014.
The twelve months as contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act
elapsed on 6th March, 2015. Thereafter, letters dated 9th July, 2015, 31st
August, 2015 and 1st September, 2015 were addressed to the Respondent
authority informing them of the lapsing of the reservation. The Petition
came to be filed on 25th February, 2016. These facts clearly indicate that

¶151

 22 of 23

¶152

Mugdha

¶153

23 Judgment-WP 9906-16.odt

¶154

contention of the 1st Respondent that there is a delay on the part of
Petitioner in approaching this Court is exfacie untenable.

¶155

27.In the light of the aforesaid observations, we hold that the
reservation of Petitioner’s said land has lapsed and the land has become
available to Petitioner to be used as permissible in law.

¶156

28.Writ Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a). The State Government is directed to notify the lapsing of the
reservation by an order to be published in the Official Gazette as per the
requirements of Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act which shall be done as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks
from today.

¶157

29.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition

¶158

accordingly stands allowed. No order as to costs.

¶159

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶160

 23 of 23

¶161

Mugdha

Mr. Arun Kashinath Shirode v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretray and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Arun Kashinath Shirode v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretray and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithanagar Kaveri Chsl Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Ors.

Mr. Shirish Bhaskar Sathaye Vs the Nashik Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

F.N.Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust through Its Trustees Lazarus S. Chinnappa and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Anr.

Nilkanth Baban Kanade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abhubakhar Mohammad Shaikh Vs the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation

Nitin Jaising Kamble and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.