Kiran Raj

A recent judgement  from the Bombay High Court has adjudicated that land reservations imposed on a property in Solapur have lapsed due to the failure of the planning authority to initiate acquisition proceedings within the statutory period. The court has directed the State Government to notify this lapse in the Official Gazette within six weeks.

The petitioners, who own land bearing Gat No. 105/2+3 in Village Bale, Taluka North Solapur, District Solapur, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that Reservation Nos. 11/53 and 11/54, which designated their land for educational purposes under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), had lapsed. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus compelling the State to publish a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act confirming the lapse of the reservations.

The Solapur Municipal Corporation, as the planning authority, had included the petitioners’ land in the development plan published on March 23, 1999, reserving portions for a primary and high school. The development plan was sanctioned by the State Government and came into effect on December 15, 2004. The land was initially agricultural but was subsequently incorporated into the municipal limits of the Solapur Municipal Corporation.

In 2000, the petitioners sought permission to convert the land for non-agricultural use, and this was granted by the District Collector of Solapur. The Collector permitted non-agricultural use for residential purposes over an area of 43,627.25 square meters and for commercial purposes over an area of 672.75 square meters.

Despite the statutory requirement to initiate acquisition proceedings within ten years from the sanctioned development plan, the planning authority did not take effective steps. In October 2019, the petitioners issued a notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, requesting the de-reservation of their property. The notice was duly served on October 17, 2019, but the planning authority failed to initiate acquisition proceedings within the required 24 months.

The petitioners received a response from the Assistant Director of Town Planning (ADTP) on November 22, 2019, which stated that their notice did not contain the required supporting documents. The petitioners, however, refuted this and submitted the required documents again on January 21, 2020. The ADTP requested additional documents in February 2020, and the petitioners provided the requested information once more in October 2021. Despite these repeated submissions, no effective steps for acquisition were taken.

The court examined whether the statutory conditions under Section 127 of the MRTP Act were met, particularly whether the planning authority had taken steps towards acquiring the land within the prescribed timeframe. The court found that the authority had failed in this regard.

The judgment refers to precedent from the Supreme Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 555, which held that mere correspondence or administrative actions do not amount to effective steps for acquisition. The court stated: “Despite increasing the period from 6 to 24 months from the date of service of the purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, the Respondent No.2 has failed to take any effective steps to acquire the suit property.”

Furthermore, referring to Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher & Others (2013) 5 SCC 627, the court held that unless acquisition proceedings result in concrete steps, such as issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the reservation lapses.

The court examined the submissions of the Solapur Municipal Corporation, which argued that the petitioners had failed to provide necessary documents. The court dismissed this contention, noting that the petitioners had submitted all relevant documents multiple times and had explicitly rejected offers for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or Floor Space Index (FSI) in lieu of compensation. The court stated:

“Record indicates that, with its notice dated 14th October 2019 issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the Petitioners had annexed all the necessary and relevant documents for the consideration of the Respondent No.2.”

The court also took note of the fact that even after the expiration of the statutory period of 24 months, the planning authority had not issued a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It observed that no effective steps had been taken, and thus, as per the law, the reservation stood lapsed.

Concluding that the reservation had lapsed, the court granted relief to the petitioners and issued the following orders:

1. “The Petition is accordingly allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b).”

2. “The State Government to notify the lapsing of reservation of the Petitioner’s land by publishing it in the Official Gazette, as per Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act within a period of six weeks from the date of uploading of the present Order on the Official website of the High Court of Bombay.”

3. “The Petitioners will be entitled to proceed with the development of the property and the Respondents will not delay the granting of permissions as the notification in the Official Gazette is merely a ministerial act.”

The court stated that the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette is a formal procedure and does not impact the rights of the petitioners to proceed with the development of their land. It also stated that the municipal corporation should not impose any further delays on the matter.

Case Title: Babubhai Shankarlal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 10618 of 2022
Bench: Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata

[Read/Download order]