Land reserved in Shirdi's 1992 development plan was never acquired; owners served statutory notices under section 127 MRTP Act before the 2019 revised plan. Court declared the reservations lapsed and directed issue of the de-notification notification within eight weeks.
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.
2024:BHC-AUG:28568-DB
wp10550.22-
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10550 OF 2022 AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 10584 OF 2022
| 1. | Nitin s/o Uttamrao Kote Age 39 years, Occ. Agriculture |
|
|---|---|---|
| 2. | Archana w/o Uttamrao Kote Age 64 years, Occ. Household & Agri. |
|
| 3. | Shriram s/o Vasantrao Kote, Age 33 years, Occ. Agriculture |
|
| 4. | Sangita w/o Shivaji Kote Age 39 years, Occ. Household & Agri. |
|
| 5. | Ketan s/o Shivaji Kote Age 29 years, Occ. Agriculture |
|
| 6. | Sankalp s/o Shivaji Kote Age 22 years, Occ. Agriculture |
|
| All R/o. Pimpalwadi Road, Shirdi Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar |
...Petitioners | |
| Versus | ||
| 1. | The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Urban Development Department State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai |
|
| 2. | The Collector, Ahmednagar District Ahmednagar |
|
| 3. | The Shirdi Nagar Panchayat Through its Chief Executive Officer Having office at Nagar Panchayat Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar |
...Respondents |
wp10550.22-
-2-
Mr. Amol K. Gawali, advocate for the petitioners Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Ashwin V. Hon, advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING : 26.11.2024 THE ORDER DATE OF PRONOUNCING : 04.12.2024 ORDER
ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :-
By these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a declaration about lapsing of reservation under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “MRTP Act”) and consequently a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue a notification under sub-section (2) of Section 127 of MRTP Act.
3. Though the matters are separate, the planning authority
being the same and even the development plan being the same, though the reservations are different in respect of different properties, in order to avoid rigmarole, we are disposing of these writ petitions by this common order.
wp10550.22-
-3-
wp10550.22-4-
wp10550.22-5-
finalized on 19.09.2019, since notice issued by the petitioners under sub-section (1) of Section 127 of MRTP Act, in tune with the right accrued in them to issue such notices, having already been exercised even prior to sanction and finalization of the revised development plan under section 38 of the MRTP Act, such subsequent revision would not give a lease of life for another ten years therefrom. The situation contemplated in Prafulla C. Dave vs. Municipal Commissioner, 2014 Mh.L.J. Online (S.C.) 191 and Chhabildas vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2018) 2 SCC 784 , lays down that such right available under section 127(1) of the MRTP Act would get defeated if in the meantime i.e. before exercising such right by issuing a notice, revised development plan comes into force under Section 38 of the MRTP Act.
“Whether date of revised development plan under section 38 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
wp10550.22-
-6-
1966 is the date relevant for calculation of period of ten years for serving notice under section 127 thereof or then it has to be date of final development plan as notified under section 31(6) thereof?”
It was answered in the following manner:-
“In view of the subsequent development i.e. lying down of the law after interpreting the provisions of sections 127, 21, 22, 31 and 38 by two Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Prafulla C. Dave and others vs. Municipal Commissioner and others, 2014 MhLJ Online (S.C.) 191 = (2015) 11 SCC 90 and Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 11 SCC 554, we find that the position stands crystallized and it will not be necessary to answer the question which is referred by the learned Judges of the Division Bench.
Needles to state that each case will have to be decided on the facts of each case, in the light of pronouncement of the law by the Apex Court in the cases of Prafulla Dave and Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra)”
Officer, Municipal Council, Beed, reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. 618, had reiterated the position. While answering the issue as to if in absence of a valid notice under section 127 of MRTP Act, the High
wp10550.22-7-
Court cannot lawfully declare the reservation for public purpose under MRTP Act for inordinately long period of time, free from reservation. While answering this issue, the full bench had declared that validity of such notice will have to be determined on facts of each case at the touchstone of the principle laid down in Prafulla C. Dave (supra) and Chabildas (supra) .
“6. The short question which arises for consideration in these matters is as to whether by reason of inaction on the part of the State and its authorities under the Town Planning Act to acquire the lands for a period of more than 10 years, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite service of notice, the same stood dereserved/ de-designated; or in view of the issuance of draft revised plan under Section 21 thereof, the term of ten years stood extended.”
It has been answered in paragraph 36 as under:-
-8-
“36. The question, however, is as to whether only because the provision of Section 20 has been refereed to therein; would it mean that thereby the legislature contemplated that the time of ten years specified by the legislature for the purpose of acquisition of the land would get automatically extended? The answer to the said question must be rendered in the negative. Following the principle of interpretation that all words must be given their full effect, we must also give full effect to the words “so far as may be” applied to such revision.”
wp10550.22-
-9-
under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act, the period of ten years will have to be reckoned with from the development plan under Section 31(6) of the MRTP Act, which in the present case was 1992.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
(MANGESH S. PATIL , J.)
rlj/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether reservations on petitioners' land lapsed under section 127(1) MRTP Act after failure to acquire for ten years.
Whether a revised development plan sanctioned in 2019 resets the ten-year period despite an earlier statutory notice under section 127.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prafulla C. Dave vs. Municipal CommissionerRelied on
2014 Mh.L.J. Online (S.C.) 191 · Who else cites this
Chhabildas vs. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on
(2018) 2 SCC 784 · Who else cites this
Prashant Bhagwantrao Raikwar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and othersReferred
writ petition No.3662 of 2011
Mohommad Usman Mohommad Hanif vs. The State of Maharashtra and othersReferred
writ petition No. 1980 of 2011
Prafulla C. Dave and others vs. Municipal Commissioner and othersRelied on
(2015) 11 SCC 90 · Who else cites this
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on
(2015) 11 SCC 554 · Who else cites this
Madanlal Zumberlal Nahar and others vs. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, BeedExplained
2023 (2) Mh.L.J. 618 · Who else cites this
Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and othersApplied
(2003) 2 SCC 111 · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 3 enactments
Nitin s/o Uttamrao Kote
Archana w/o Uttamrao Kote
Shriram s/o Vasantrao Kote
Sangita w/o Shivaji Kote
Ketan s/o Shivaji Kote
Sankalp s/o Shivaji Kote
Mangesh S. Patil
Prafulla S. Khubalkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
