WP-16064-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 16064 OF 2024

Devi Construction LLP .. Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

Adv. Dormaan Dalal a/w Adv. Shirley Mody for the Petitioner.

Ms. Kavita Solunke, Adl. GP a/w Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for

Respondent/State.

CORAM: R.I CHAGLA &

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

RESERVED ON:1

st

SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON :23

rd

SEPTEMBER, 2026

ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA J.)

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of

parties.

2.This Writ Petition seeks quashing and setting aside of the Order dated

9

th

September, 2024 passed by Respondent No.3, Director of Town Planning,

and after quashing and setting aside the same confirming and accepting the

Petitioner’s Purchase Notice dated 15

th

March, 2024.

Page 1 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

MANSI

DHANANJAY

SHELKE

Digitally signed by

MANSI DHANANJAY

SHELKE

Date: 2026.09.23

14:08:59 +0530

WP-16064-2024.doc

FACTS

3.The subject matter of this Petition is a property bearing Bhumapan No.

107/B of Village Vadgaon, admeasuring 2.10 Hectares (21000 sq. mtrs)

(hereinafter referred to as “the said property”) owned by the Petitioner.

4.On 28

th

February, 2024, Respondent No.4, the Vadgaon Nagar

Panchayat, who is the Planning Authority under the Maharashtra Regional

and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the MRTP Act”)

published a Draft Development Plan under Section 26 of the MRTP Act. As

per the Draft Development Plan, a portion of the said property admeasuring

12,290 sq. mtrs. was reserved by the Planning Authority for a Garden, being

Reservation No. 40 ‘Garden’.

5.The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 12

th

March, 2024 to Respondent

No.5, the Chief Officer of Respondent No.4, objecting to the Garden

Reservation.

6.A Purchase Notice dated 15

th

March, 2024 was issued by the Petitioner

under Section 49 of the MRTP Act, and more particularly also under Section

49(1)(a) and Section 49 (1)(e). This Purchase Notice was addressed to

Respondent No.2, being the Principal Secretary of Urban Development

Department. Under Section 151 of the MRTP Act, the State Government has

delegated its powers to pass Orders under Section 49(4) of the MRTP Act to

Page 2 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

Respondent No.3 Director of Town Planning, vide Notification dated 1

st

December, 2016.

7.By an Order dated 9

th

September, 2024, Respondent No.3 rejected the

Purchase Notice of the Petitioner. This Order dated 9

th

September, 2024 is

impugned in the present Petition.

8.On 16

th

October, 2024, the present Petition was filed.

9.An Affidavit-in-Reply dated 5

th

November, 2025 was filed by one

Abhijit Ketkar, Assistant Director of Town Planning, on behalf of Respondent

Nos. 1 to 3. Although, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been served in the

matter, they have chosen not to appear in the matter.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER

10.Mr. Dormaan Dalal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

Petitioner, submitted that Respondent No.3 had, by the impugned Order

dated 9

th

September, 2024, rejected the request of the Petitioner under

Section 49 of the MRTP Act on the purported ground that sub-section (2) of

Section 49 contemplates that the Purchase Notice under Section 49 (1) has to

be accompanied by a copy of an application made by the Applicant to the

Planning Authority and an Order or decision of the Authority and of the State

Government, if any. Mr. Dalal submitted that Respondent No.3 has

completely misread Section 49 (1) & (2) of the MRTP Act. Mr. Dalal

Page 3 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

submitted that a copy of an application made to the Planning Authority is to

be accompanied along with a Purchase Notice only when the Applicant makes

an application under Section 49 (1)(d) which contemplates refusal of

permission for development of land or permission subject to conditions. Mr.

Dalal submitted that, in the present case, the Petitioner has made the

application under Section 49(1)(a) and (e). In fact, the Petitioner had

specifically stated in the Purchase Notice that it is unable to sell the said

property except at a lower price, which squarely falls under Section 49 (1)(e),

and had raised an objection to the reservation vide letter dated 12

th

March,

2024. Mr. Dalal submitted that, in such cases, the law does not contemplate

making any separate application to the Planning Authority in addition to the

Purchase Notice.

11.Mr. Dalal submitted that Respondent No.3 had failed to appreciate the

contention of the Petitioner that Section 49(1)(a),(b),(c),(d) and (e) are

mutually exclusive of each other. Further, Mr. Dalal submitted that what

must be considered by Respondent No.3 is the form and substance of the

application and not the Section under which it is made.

12.Mr. Dalal submitted that the very purpose of Section 49 was to ensure

that the owner of the property should not be deprived of the right to enjoy

and use his/her property, which is a constitutional right under Article 300-A

of the Constitution of India. Mr. Dalal, therefore, submitted that such

Page 4 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

technical objections of Respondent No.3 come in the way of the Petitioner

enjoying the benefits and value attached to its property which is lost because

of the reservation put in place by the Respondents.

13.In support of his submissions, Mr. Dalal relied upon the following

Judgements :

a)Aone Land Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2019

SCC OnLine Bom 9845.

b) Gopal Kashinath Lad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Order

dated 1

st

July, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 4661 of 2021).

c)Chhabildas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 784

d)Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

(1999) 1 SCC 354.

e)State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. Vs. Shubam Sangra

(2022) 20 SCC 1.

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3.

14.Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed an Affidavit-in-Reply dated 5

th

November, 2025 of one Abhijit Ketkar, working as Assistant Director of

Town Planning, Pune. Relying upon the said Affidavit, Ms. Kavita Solunke,

the learned AGP, submitted that the Purchase Notice under Section 49(1) has

Page 5 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

to be accompanied by a copy of an application made to the planning authority

under the provisions of Section 49(2) of the MRTP Act and a copy of any

Order or decision of the Authority and of the State Government, in respect of

which a Notice has been given. Ms. Solunke submitted that, in the present

case, the Petitioner has failed to annex a copy of the application made to the

Planning Authority alongwith the Purchase Notice and, therefore, the

Purchase Notice has been rightly rejected by Respondent No. 3.

15.Ms. Solunke further submitted that it is mandatory for the Petitioner to

file a claim with the Municipal Council regarding not getting a reasonable

price and submitting a copy of it along with the Purchase Notice. However, as

per the said Purchase Notice given by the Petitioner, it does not appear that

the Petitioner has filed a claim with the Municipal Council. Therefore, since a

copy of such claim has not been submitted along with the Purchase Notice,

the Petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 49(2) of the

MRTP Act, and the Petitioner’s Purchase Notice has been rightly rejected.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

16.Section 49 of the MRTP Act reads as under :

“49. Obligation to acquire land on refusal of permission or on

grant of permission in certain cases

(1) Where

Page 6 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

(a) any land is designated by a plan as subject to compulsory

acquisition, or

(b) any land is allotted by a plan for the purpose of any

functions of a Government or local authority or statutory

body, or is land designated in such plan as a site proposed to

be developed for the purposes of any functions of any such

Government, authority or body, or

(c) any land is indicated in any plan as land on which a

highway is proposed to be constructed or included, or

[(d) any land for the development of which permission is

refused or is granted subject to conditions, and any owner of

land referred to in clauses (a), (b) (c) or (d) claims-

(i) that the land has become incapable of reasonably

beneficial use in its existing state, or

(ii) (where planning permission is given subject to

conditions) that the land cannot be rendered capable of

reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of the

permitted development in accordance with the conditions;

or]

(e) the owner of the land because of its designation or

allocation in any plan claims that he is unable to sell it except

at a lower price than that at which he might reasonably have

been expected to sell if it were not so designated or allocated,

the owner or person affected may serve on the State

Government within such time and in such manner, as is

prescribed by regulations, a notice (hereinafter referred to as

"the purchase notice") requiring the Appropriate Authority to

purchase the interest in the land in accordance with the

provisions of this Act.

(2) The purchase notice shall be accompanied by a copy of any

application made by the applicant to the Planning Authority, and

of any order or decision of that Authority and of the State

Government, if any, in respect of which the notice is given.

(3) On receipt of a purchase notice, the State Government shall

forthwith call from the Planning Authority and the Appropriate

Authority such report or records or both, as may be necessary,

which those authorities shall forward to the State Government as

Page 7 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

soon as possible but not later than thirty days from the date of

their requisition.

(4) On receiving such records or reports, if the State Government

is satisfied that the conditions specified in sub-section (1) are

fulfilled, and that the order or decision for permission was not

duly made on the ground that the applicant did not comply with

any of the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations, it may

confirm the purchase notice, or direct that planning permission

be granted without condition or subject to such conditions as will

make the land capable of reasonably beneficial use. In any other

case, it may refuse to confirm the purchase notice, but in that

case, it shall give the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being

heard.

(5) If within a period of six months from the date on which a

purchase notice is served the State Government does not pass

any final order thereon, the notice shall be deemed to have been

confirmed at the expiration of that period.

(6) [* * *]

(7) If within one year from the date of confirmation of the notice,

the Appropriate Authority fails to make an application to acquire

the land in respect of which the purchase notice has been

confirmed as required under section 126, the reservation,

designation, allotment, indication or restriction on development

of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed; and thereupon, the

land shall be deemed to be released from the reservation,

designation, or, as the case may be, allotment, indication or

restriction and shall become available to the owner for the

purpose of development otherwise permissible in the case of

adjacent land, under the relevant plan.”

17.The issue involved in the present Petition is whether the Petitioner’s

Purchase Notice could have been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner

had not made an application under Section 49(2) of the MRTP Act.

18.In our view, this issue is no longer res integra. In Aone Developers

(supra), an Order dated 5

th

April, 2017 was passed by the Urban Development

Page 8 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

Department, by which a Purchase Notice of the Petitioner therein came to be

rejected on the ground that the Petitioner had not subm itted any

development proposal to the Planning Authority in respect of the land in

question and, since, the land was situated in the residential zone, it was

always open for the Petitioner to construct upon the remaining portion of the

land by using the FSI/TDR of the reserved DP road. This Order dated 5

th

April, 2017 was assailed by filing a Writ Petition. In the said Judgement, a

Division Bench of this Court held that sub-section (2) of Section 49 is

unambiguous and it simply conveys that the Purchase Notice shall be

accompanied by a copy of an application made by the Applicant to the

Planning Authority and of any Order or decision of that Authority and of the

State Government on such application, if any, in respect of which Notice is

given. Sub-section (2) thus intends to cover only that contingency where any

application was preferred to the Planning Authority and which has resulted

into any order or decision of that Authority and of the State Government.

Sub-section (2) cannot be read to be applicable to each of the contingencies

in sub-section (1) but it will have to relate itself only where any application

has been preferred to the Planning Authority and any order or decision on

the same is made. The Judgement further holds that the indication is to be

found in sub-section (3), which provides that on receipt of the Purchase

Page 9 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

Notice, the State Government shall forthwith call from the Planning

Authority and the appropriate Authority such records as may be necessary.

19. Further, in Aone Developers (supra), this Court held that a perusal of

Section 49 contemplates several contingencies resulting into an obligation to

acquire the land. The contingencies enumerated are independent of each

other, and one of the contingencies contemplated is whether the permission

for development is sought and the same is refused or is granted subject to

such conditions, and in such a contingency, the owner of the land may claim

that the land has become incapable of reasonable beneficial use in its existing

state, or that it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by

carrying out the permitted development where the permission is granted

subject to some conditions. Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 49

contemplates an independent contingency where the owner of the land,

because of its designation or allocation in the plan, claims that he is unable to

sell it except at a lower price than that at which he might reasonably have

been expected to sell, if it were not so designated or allocated. The Purchase

Notice which is served in the backdrop of the contingency contemplated in

clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 can be related and connected to

sub-section (2) of Section 49, where the Purchase Notice shall be

accompanied by a copy of an application made and an order or decision of

that Authority, if at all there is any. However, this would not be so in the case

Page 10 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

of a Purchase Notice served on the Appropriate Authority, to purchase the

interest in the land owned by taking aid of Clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of

Section 49.

20.Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 15 (part) and 16 of the said Judgement are

relevant and are set out hereunder :

“10. The said provision is carved out by the legislature as an

obligation to acquire land on refusal of permission or grant of

permission in certain cases, as can be discerned from the

marginal note of the said section. Sub-section (1) of Section 49

contemplates several situations where the owner of the land or

the 'person affected' may serve on the State Government a notice

referred to as 'the Purchase Notice' requiring appropriate

authority to purchase the interest in the land in accordance with

the provisions of the Act. The contingencies contemplated when

such a notice can be served are mutually exclusive/independent

of each other and are contained in clauses(a), (b), (c), (d) and

(e). Any owner of the land referred to in the aforesaid clause or

the person affected by staking his claim as contemplated in

clause (i) and (ii) i.e. the land has become incapable of

reasonably beneficial use in its existing state or (ii) where the

planning permission is given (subject to conditions) that the land

cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the

carrying out of the permitted development in accordance with

the conditions, it is this owner who falls within any of the

category (a), (b), (c), (d) (e) may serve a Purchase Notice.

11. Sub-section (1) of Section 49 on its plain reading is

indicative of the several contingencies pertaining to the land of

an owner and all the contingencies are carved out as

independent exigencies and this can very well be inferred since

the word "or" is indicative that each contingency/situation is to

be read disjunctively. The attempt of Shri Pethe is to read the

said provision to convey and interpret it by restricting clauses (i)

and (ii) to clause (a) of sub-section (1).

12. The said submission needs to be tested. The State

Government has rejected the Purchase Notice on the ground that

the petitioner has not preferred any application for development

of the remaining plot of land unaffected by the reservation to the

Page 11 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

Corporation. According to Shri Pethe, it is only when the

permission for development is refused or granted subject to

conditions the claim can be staked to the effect contemplating

under clause (i) or (ii) or clause (e), where the owner of the land

because of its designation or allocation in any plan claims that

he is unable to sell it expect at a lower price than that at which

he might have been reasonably expected to sell, if it is not so

designated. Emphasis of Shri Pethe is on sub-section (2) of

Section 49 which make it imperative for the Purchase Notice to

be accompanied by a copy of the application made by the

applicant to the planning authority and any order or decision of

that authority. We are unable to accede ourselves to the

submission of Shri Pethe. The effort while interpreting a statute

should be to read it as it is if the reading creates an ambiguity,

apply the rules of interpretation. Sub-section (2) is unambiguous

and it simply conveys that the Purchase Notice shall be

accompanied by a copy of any application made by the applicant

to the planning authority and of any order or decision of that

authority and of the State Government on such application, if

any, in respect of which notice is given. Sub-section (2) thus

intends to cover only that contingency where any application

was preferred to the planning authority and which has resulted

into any order or decision of that authority and of the State

Government. Sub-section (2) however cannot be read to be

applicable to each of the contingencies in sub-section (1) but it

will have to relate itself only where any application has been

preferred to the planning authority and any order or decision on

the same. The indication is to be found in sub-section (3) which

provides that on receipt of the purchase notice, the State

Government shall forthwith call from the Planning Authority

and the Appropriate Authority such report or records as may be

necessary. Sub-section (4) further stipulates that on receipt of

such reports or records if the State Government is satisfied that

the conditions specified in sub-section (1) are fulfilled and that

the order or decision for permission was not duly made or

subject to such conditions on the ground that the applicant did

not comply with the provisions of the Act or Rules or

Regulations, it may confirm the purchase notice or direct that

the planning permission may be granted without condition as

will make the land capable of reasonably beneficial use. Sub-

section (7) contemplates that if within one year from the date of

confirmation of the notice, there is failure on the part of the

appropriate authority to make an application to acquire the land

in respect of which the purchase notice has been confirmed as

required under Section 126, the reservation, designation,

Page 12 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

allotment or the restriction imposed on the development of the

land shall be deemed to have lapses and thereupon the land

stands released from the said reservation/designation or

restriction and becomes available to the owner.

15. …...Perusal of Section 49 contemplates several

contingencies resulting into an obligation to acquire the land.

The contingencies enumerated are independent of each other

and one of the contingency contemplated is whether the

permission for development is sought and the same is refused or

is granted subject to such conditions and in such a contingency,

the owner of the land may claim that the land has become

incapable of reasonable beneficial use in its existing state or that

it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by

carrying out the permitted development where the permission is

granted subject to some conditions. However, clause (e) of sub-

section (1) of Section 49 contemplates an independent

contingency where the owner of land because of its designation

or allocation in the plan claims that he is unable to sell it except

at a lower price, then, that at which he might reasonably have

been expected to sell, if it were not so designated or allocated.

The purchase notice which is served in the backdrop of

contingency contemplated in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of

Section 49 can be related and connected to sub-section (2) of

Section 49 where the purchase notice shall be accompanied by a

copy of an application made and an order or decision of that

authority, if at all there is any…...

16. Since the petitioner has pleaded his case put in the purchase

notice by him on 17

th

November 2016 and has required the

appropriate authority to purchase the interest in the land owned

by him, by taking aid of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section

49 and has made it clear that since he is invoking the said

clause, the notice is not accompanied with any application for

development permission filed before the Planning Authority or

any order passed by the said authority as contemplated in

subsection (2) of Section 49. When he specifically rests his case

on clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 49 which according to

us, is an independent contingency, not depending on clause (d)

of sub-section (1), the net result as is derived at by the impugned

order or the one which is sought to be put forth before us by the

learned counsel for the Corporation would defeat the very

purpose underlying Section 49. We are not inclined to constrict

Page 13 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

the operation of Section 49 merely to a factum where an

application for permission for development is made and it is

refused or is granted subject to the conditions. The provision

contained in the legislature has to be read as it is and if there is

no ambiguity in the same, it is not permissible for the Court to

interpret it, when the interpretation is uncalled for. A plain

reading of Section 49 in its entirety take us to an irresistible

conclusion which prompt us to quash and set aside the

impugned order passed by the State Government.”

21.In Gopal Lad (supra), the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, by

following Aone Developers (supra), has taken the same view. In that case,

due to a reservation, the Petitioner therein was unable to sell his land except

at a lower price than the market price. Accordingly, on the said ground the

Petitioner served a Purchase Notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act upon

the Secretary of Urban Development Department, Governme nt of

Maharashtra. However, by the impugned order dated 24

th

December, 2020,

the Respondents therein rejected the said Purchase Notice dated 17

th

June,

2020 on the ground that the same was not accompanied with any application

for development permission made before any Planning Authority. This Court,

by relying upon the Judgement in Aone Developers (supra), held that, in the

said Judgement, this Court had observed that clause (e) of sub-section 49(1)

contemplates an independent contingency where the owner of the land

because of its designation or allocation or any plan claims that he is unable to

sell it except at a lower price than at which it might have been reasonably

excepted to sell, if it were not so designated or allocated. This Court further

Page 14 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

went on to hold that, from the observations made by this Court in Aone

Developers (supra), it was clear that contingency mentioned in clause (e) of

sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the MRTP Act and in sub-section (2) of

Section 49 of the MRTP Act are independent of each other. If no such

application is there on part of Petitioner or affected person made before the

Authority and there is no decision taken by the Authority then there is no

question of annexing the same with the Purchase Notice. Therefore, when the

Purchase Notice of the Petitioner is only on the ground as contemplated in

clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 49, then asking for such an application

as contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the MRTP Act is not at all

necessary and therefore the rejection on that ground appeared highly

erroneous.

22.Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said Judgement are relevant and are set

out hereunder :

“10. So far as the second reason of rejection of purchase

notice is concerned, the respondents have claimed that the

purchase notice was not accompanied by a copy of an application

made by the applicant to the planning Authority or any order or

decision of that Authority, as contemplated in sub-section (2) of

Section 49 of the MRTP Act. However, this Court (Coram: Ranjit

V. More and Bharati Dangre, JJ.) at the Principal Seat of

Bombay, in Writ Petition No. 9587 of 2017 in the case of

Aone

Land Developers vs. State of Maharashtra and others, has

observed that, clause (e) of sub-section 49 contemplates an

independent contingency where the owner of the land because of

its designation or allocation in any plan claims that he is unable

to sell it except at a lower price than that at which he might have

been reasonably expected to sell, if it were not so designated or

allocated. On the contrary, sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the

Page 15 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

MRTP Act provides for annexing an application made and an

order or decision of that Authority if at all there is any. It has

been observed in the aforesaid judgment as below:

"The sequitor of the purchase notice culminates in

sub-section(4) where the State Government is

satisfied that the contingencies contemplated in

clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) are

fulfilled and that the order or decision for permission

was not duly made on the ground that there was no

compliance of certain provisions of the Act or Rules

and it may confirm the purchase notice or it may

direct the Planning Authority to grant permission

subject to such conditions so as to enable the owner

to make use of the land in a reasonably beneficial

manner. However, where there is a refusal to confirm

purchase notice, it contemplates an opportunity of

hearing being afforded to the person serving a

notice".

11. From the aforesaid observation, it is already made

clear that the contingencies mentioned in clause (e) of sub-

section (1) of Section 49 of the MRTP Act and in sub-section (2)

of Section 49 of the MRTP Act are independent of each other. If

no such application is there on the part of the petitioner or

affected person made before the Authority and any decision

taken thereof by the Authority, then there is no question of

annexing the same with the purchase notice. Therefore, when the

purchase notice of the petitioner is only on the ground as

contemplated in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 49, then

asking for such application as contemplated in sub-section (2) of

Section 49 of the MRTP Act, is not at all necessary, and

therefore, rejection on that ground appears highly erroneous.”

23.Applying the ratio of these decisions to the present case, since, the

Petitioner has given a Purchase Notice under both Section 49(1)(a) and 49(1)

(e), the same is not required to be accompanied by an application as referred

to under Section 49(2) of the MRTP Act. Section 49 (1)(a) provides for giving

Page 16 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

Purchase Notice where any land is designated by a plan as subject to

compulsory acquisition. Section 49 (1)(e) provides for giving a Purchase

Notice when the owner of the land because of its designation or allocation in

any plan claims that he is unable to sell it accept at a lower price than that at

which he might reasonably accepted to sell if it were not so designated or

allocated. In our view, both these situations do not warrant any application

being made by the Petitioner to the Planning Authority or of any order or

decision of that Authority and of the State Government on the said

application. For these reasons, in our view, the Purchase Notice dated 15

th

March, 2024 given by the Petitioner was not required to be accompanied by

an application as provided under Section 49(2). The Purchase Notice having

been given under Section 49(1)(a) and (e), to that extent, it must be

considered.

24.The Order dated 9

th

September, 2024 rejects the Purchase Notice on

the ground that it is not accompanied by an application referred to in Section

49(2). For all the reasons set out herein above, the said reason is incorrect

and hence Order dated 9

th

September, 2024 is required to be quashed and set

aside.

25.Further, Respondent No.3 would have to be directed to decide the

Purchase Notice dated 15

th

March, 2024 of the Petitioner under Section 49(1)

(a) and (e), without insisting for an application under Section 49(2) of the

Page 17 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke

WP-16064-2024.doc

MRTP Act, on its own merits, within a period of six weeks from the date of

uploading of this Order.

ORDER

26.In the light of the aforesaid discussion and for all the reasons stated

herein above :

a) The Order dated 9

th

September, 2024 passed by Respondent

No.3 is hereby quashed and set aside.

b) Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the Purchase Notice dated

15

th

March, 2024 of the Petitioner under Section 49(1)(a) and (e)

without insisting upon an application under Section 49(2) of the MRTP

Act, and on its own merits, within a period of six weeks from the date

of uploading of this Order.

c) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

d) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order

as to costs.

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R. I. CHAGLA, J.]

Page 18 of 18

September 23, 2026

Mansi shelke