Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has held that the reservation of a vacant plot in Amravati, Maharashtra, for a private school had lapsed due to the failure of the authorities to acquire the land within the statutory timeframe prescribed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The Court observed that the property in question had remained reserved for 33 years without acquisition and that the steps taken by the authorities were insufficient to prevent the deemed lapse of reservation under Sections 49(7) and 127 of the MRTP Act. The Court noted that the landowners had issued the required purchase notice, and since the authorities had failed to initiate acquisition within the stipulated period, the land stood de-reserved by operation of law. Consequently, the Court set aside all impediments preventing the appellants from utilizing the land in accordance with permissible development norms.

The case concerned a vacant plot of land measuring 50,138 square feet, situated in Survey No. 81/3 (New) 3 (Old) in Mouza Rajapeth, Amravati, Maharashtra. The plot was originally part of a larger parcel of 2.47 hectares, jointly owned by private individuals. The municipal authorities sanctioned a development plan that designated a portion of the land for residential purposes while reserving the disputed portion for a government school. However, in 1993, a revised development plan under the MRTP Act came into effect, changing the reservation to a private school under Reservation No. 195, in favor of a registered public trust.

Despite this designation, no steps were taken to acquire the land for 13 years. On July 4, 2006, the original owners served a purchase notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act, calling upon the authorities to either acquire the land or release it from reservation. On January 2, 2007, the authorities confirmed the purchase notice and directed the acquiring body to complete the acquisition proceedings within a year, failing which the reservation would lapse. However, no steps were taken within the prescribed timeframe. Instead, on December 29, 2007, just days before the deadline, the acquiring body requested the initiation of acquisition proceedings under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. This request did not culminate in any formal acquisition action.

Subsequently, in 2014, the previous owners issued another purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Despite the statutory requirement that acquisition proceedings be initiated within a year, the authorities again failed to act. On December 30, 2015, the appellants purchased the property from the erstwhile owners. They later approached the High Court seeking a declaration that the reservation had lapsed and that the land was free for development. The High Court disposed of the petition, granting the appellants liberty to take appropriate legal steps.

The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that, by operation of law, the reservation had lapsed on January 2, 2008, under Section 49(7) and again on August 13, 2015, under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. It was submitted that the authorities’ failure to act within the statutory period extinguished the reservation. The appellants further argued that keeping the land reserved indefinitely without acquisition amounted to an unreasonable restriction on property rights.

The Court examined the statutory framework and previous judicial pronouncements, including Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra, and Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra. It recorded that “if a period of 10 years has elapsed from the date of publication of the plan in question, and no steps for acquiring the land have been taken, then once a purchase notice is served under Section 127, steps to acquire the land must follow within a period of one year from the date of service of such notice, or else the land acquisition proceedings would lapse.”

The Court observed that “the landowner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a landowner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for an indefinite period.” It further noted that the municipal authorities and the acquiring body had not deposited any compensation amount, which indicated a lack of intent to proceed with the acquisition.

Addressing the authorities' argument that the reservation continued to subsist, the Court held that “the statutory framework does not permit indefinite retention of property under reservation without actual acquisition. The authorities were required to act within the prescribed period, failing which the reservation stood lapsed by operation of law.” It was further recorded that “the appropriate authority cannot rely on procedural delays to circumvent the statutory consequences of failing to acquire land within the mandated timeline.”

The Court referred to the precedent set in Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that “where an inordinately long delay takes place from the date on which the appropriate authority makes an application to acquire the land, the land in question stands released from reservation.” The Court also cited Hasmukhrai V. Mehta, which stated that “since no steps appear to have been taken for the last more than twenty years either for acquisition or for purchase of the land, the land in question stands released from reservation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.”

Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the reservation had lapsed both under Section 49(7) on January 2, 2008, and under Section 127 on August 13, 2015. It was observed that “in such circumstances, when the erstwhile owners sold the land to the appellants herein on December 30, 2015, there was no reservation.” The Court held that the authorities' failure to act within the stipulated period had resulted in the land being freed from reservation, making it available for development in accordance with the applicable norms.

Case Title: Nirmiti Developers Through Its Partners & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: 2025 INSC 265; Civil Appeal Nos. 3238-3239 of 2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]