Once the Act is Amended, reliance on a Notification prior to the amendment cannot be considered: Bombay High Court Upholds 24Month Acquisition Rule
Safiya Malik
The Bombay High Court in its judgement on a dispute concerning a land reservation in Pune, rejecting a petition that sought to declare the lapse of a reservation on a playground. The petitioners had contended that the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) failed to take steps for acquisition within the legally mandated period, thereby allowing them to develop the land. The court, however, concluded that the petition was premature, citing amendments to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), which extended the period for acquisition.
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by two residents of Pune, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to declare the lapse of the reservation on a playground, designated as PG-32, located in Village Ambegaon, Budruk, Taluka-Haveli, District-Pune. The land in question, bearing Survey No.34/3/5/2 and measuring 00H-05R, was reserved under a notification dated 2nd/5th March 2012.
The petitioners contended that since more than ten years had passed since the initial reservation, and even after six months following a purchase notice issued on 2nd November 2022, PMC had not taken any steps for acquisition, the reservation should be deemed to have lapsed. They argued that under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the land should be made available for their development.
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel Ms. Aparna Devkar asserted that the six-month period stipulated in the previous version of Section 127(1) should apply since the reservation was sanctioned in 2012. She relied on a precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Shri Shankar Newandram Budhwani v. The Chief Officer and Ors., arguing that the lapse of reservation was inevitable as PMC had failed to act within the required timeframe. She further contended that the statutory period within which the PMC could take steps had long expired and that the petitioners should now be free to develop the land.
On the other hand, PMC’s counsel, Ms. Manisha Jagtap, contended that the petition was premature, as PMC had already initiated acquisition proceedings. She pointed out that PMC had passed a resolution (No. 125) on 30th September 2024 to acquire the land. Following this, the Department of Land Acquisition of PMC had sent a proposal dated 30th January 2025 to the District Collector to acquire the property. Since the current law allows for 24 months instead of the earlier six months, the petition was premature, and the land remained under reservation.
PMC also presented documents to show that discussions had taken place regarding the necessity of retaining the land for public purposes. The corporation’s legal representatives stated that statutory timelines should be determined in light of the latest amendments, and any reliance on outdated provisions would be erroneous. The respondents argued that the reservation was still valid and enforceable within the framework of the MRTP Act.
After considering the arguments, the court examined Section 127 of the MRTP Act. It noted that the original provision had been amended by Maharashtra Act 42 of 2015, extending the period for acquisition from 6 months to 12 months and later to 24 months. The court recorded:
“We are unable to accept the argument that since the draft Development Plan was partly sanctioned in 2012, the provisions of the old section would apply. The reliance on the notification dated 2nd March 2012 in support of this contention is misplaced because the Act was amended with effect from 29th August 2015, increasing the period from six months to 24 months.”
The bench further observed that legislative intent behind the amendment was to provide planning authorities with sufficient time to take steps for acquisition. It further noted:
“Once the law is amended, the newly prescribed timeline takes precedence over any previous statutory provisions. Any assumption that a past notification continues to govern such cases, despite legislative intervention, is incorrect.”
The bench also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the precedent in Shri Shankar Newandram Budhwani, stating:
“In our view, once the Act is amended, reliance on a notification prior to the amendment cannot be considered. Consequently, the amended period prescribed on the date of issuance of notice i.e., on 2nd November 2022, which is ‘24 months’ as stated in Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, will apply and not the date on which the land was reserved by Notification dated 5th March 2012.”
The court also examined official communications between PMC and the District Collector and noted that steps had already been initiated for land acquisition. It stated:
“The records indicate that the authorities have acted upon the purchase notice within the legally stipulated timeframe. Therefore, no case is made out for granting relief as sought by the petitioners.”
The court determined that the reliance on the earlier notification and judgment was both misplaced and misconstrued.
The court dismissed the petition, stating that it was premature. It stated:
“Thus, in our view, the petition is premature and is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Title: Shakuntala Ranganath Lohapatre & Anr. v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:10332-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11182 of 2023
Bench: Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata
[Read/Download order]
