2025 INSC 265 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3238-3239 OF 2025

(@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.23308 -23309/2017)

NIRMITI DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS & ANR. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These captioned appeals arise from an order passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 09-02-2017 in

Writ Petition No.1935/2016 by which the Writ Petition filed by the

appellants – herein came to be disposed of reserving liberty for

the appellants to take necessary steps as open to them in law.

3. The facts giving rise to these petitions may be summarized as

under.

4. The subject-matter of this litigation is a vacant plot of land

admeasuring 50,138 sq.ft (46.5 R) in Survey No. 81/3 (New) 3 (old)

in Mouza Rajapeth, Amravati, Maharashtra. This plot originally was

jointly owned by Smt Akhtar Bano Rashid, Abdul Majid A . Samad &

Mohammad Sajid A. Samad (previous owners) respectively, and formed

part of the larger plot admeasuring 2.47 Hectare. The

2

property in question is situated within the municipal limits of

Respondent No.3 – herein.

5. The erstwhile owners had submitted a lay -out plan for

development of 2.47 hectare to Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3

sanctioned the development plan for the residential area and the

remaining area admeasuring 50 ,138 Sq.ft. was reserved for

Government school.

6. On 25-02-1993, a revised development plan for Amravati under

the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short

“the MRTP Act”) came into effect in which the property was shown as

reserved for a private school in favour of the Respondent No.5 vide

Reservation No.195. Till 2006, i.e., almost for a period of 13

years, no steps were taken to acquire the property.

7. On 04-07-2006, the original owners served the purchase notice

under Section 149 of the MRTP Act on the Respondent No.1 calling

upon the said respondent either to acquire the property or to

release it from reservation.

8. On 02-01-2007 the Respondent No.1 acknowledged the purchase

notice. The Respondent No.1 directed the Respondent No.5 to

complete the acquisition proceedings within a period of one year,

failing which the reservation in its favour would lapse.

9. On 29-12-2007, the Respondent No.5 requested the Respondent

No.7 to initiate proceedings for acquiring the land under Section

126 of the MRTP Act.

10. Till 02-01-2008, no action was taken by the Respondent No.5 to

commence the acquisition proceedings within one year of

confirmation of the purchase notice.

3

11. On 13-08-2014, the previous owners issued a purchase notice

under Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the Respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 6

respectively requesting them to acquire the land.

12. On 12-06-2015, the Respondent No.6 received the proposal from

Respondent No.5 to acquire the land.

13. On 30-12-2015, the petitioner – herein purchased the property

from the erstwhile owners for Rs.1.26 Crore.

14. On 16-03-2016, the appellants filed a Writ Petition praying

that (a) the Respondent No.5 be directed to deposit the amount of

compensation to be paid to the appellants for acquisition under the

new Land Acquisition Act, 2017 and complete the acquisition & (b)

declare that the reservation had lapsed under Section 49(7) of the

Act.

15. On 01-10-2016, reply was filed by the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7

respectively stating that on 12 -6-2015, proposal from the

Respondent No.5 was received and LAC was registered but till that

date the Respondent No.5 had not deposited a single penny with the

LAO and the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 had reasons to believe that the

Respondent No.5 was not interested in develop ing the said land.

16. On 13-10-2016, the Respondent No.3 filed an additional claim

not disclosed by the appellants in their notice dated 13-8-2014.

17. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitions filed

by the appellants came to be disposed of by the High Court which

reads thus:-

Order dated 09-02-2017 reads thus:-

“Heard Shri G.K Mundhada, learned Counsel for the

petitioners, Shri N. Rao, learned A.G.P. for respondent

4

nos.1,2,4,6 and 7, Shri R. Darda, learned Counsel for

respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Shri S. Ghodeswar, learned

Counsel for respondent no. 5.

2. Petitioner is a purchaser who has bought property

from original owners. Original owners issued a notice under

Section 49[1] of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, that notice is dated 04 -07-2006. It was

confirmed on 02 -01-2007, within a period of one year,

thereafter no steps for acquisition were taken. Original

owners thereafter did not take any steps for development.

They have sold the property on 31 -12-2015 to the present

developer.

3. Effort of learned counsel for the petitioners is

to urge that before that in 2015, original owners had

sought permission to raise compound wall and the same was

declined. Thus, after confirmation of purchase notice,

expiry of period of one year therefrom, at least for a

period of 6 years no steps to develop the same were taken

by the original owners.

4. Two separate procedures are deliberately made

available under the Act. A person who wants to immediately

develop his property can take recourse to section 49,

otherwise he has to wait for a period of 10 years as

envisaged under Section 127[1] thereof. Section 49 is not

meant for getting the property de -reserved and then to wait

for appropriate time to sell out it in open market.

5

5. Here petitioner is a developer, it has not taken

any steps after purchase to issue notice either under

Section 49 or under Section 127 of the Act.

6. Notice given by the previous land owners was under

Section 49 only and as no advantage of de -reservation was

taken for more than 6 years, we find that, that notice or

then the benefits flowing therefrom cannot accrue to the

benefits of present petitioners. Hence, with liberty to

petitioner to take such other steps as are open to him in

law, we dispose of the present petition. No costs.”

Order dated 07-04-2017:(IN REVIEW PETITION)

“Heard Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel with

Shri G.K. Mundhada, learned Counsel for applicants and

learned A.G.P. for non -applicant nos. 1,2,6 and 7.

2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that literal

meaning of Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, 1966 should be adhered to and as the

reservation had already lapsed, purchaser is not required

to go through· the rigmarole of serving notice either under

Section 49 or under Section 127 again. He contends that the

finding of this Court in paragraph no.4 are, therefore,

contrary to Scheme of Section 49.

3. This Court has already in judgment in case of Kishor

Maganlal Vyas vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ

Petition No. 506/2011. Dated 11 -06-2012), held that

normally procedure for de -reservation is Section 127,

wherein the local authority gets time of 10 years to

6

acquire the property. However, to mitigate the hardship

caused to a genuine needy owner, a provision has been made

in Section 49 and hence, a specified class of owners

emerging therein can only take recourse to it.

4. Here we have found that after lapsing of

reservation for a period of 6 years the earlier owner had

not either developed the property or sold it out. Thus, the

property was lying as it is, and hence, recourse to Section

49 itself is found not proper. De -reservation here was used

to get the best desired price after waiting for long time.

Section 127 of the Act gives reasonable time to acquiring

body to act and acquire. De -reservation thereunder may

therefore enure to the benefit of purchaser also. Same

cannot be said in respect of Section 49 de -reservation.

Section 49 operates on personal need of the owner and it

cannot enure to the benefit of purchaser like petitioner.

It is in this background, that we have held that the

purchaser from that owner [present applicant] has not taken

necessary steps either under Section 49 or under Section

127 of the Act.

5. We, therefore, find no case made out warranting

review. Misc. Civil Application is thus rejected. No

costs.”

7

18. The High Court took the view that the person intending to

develop his property at the earliest can take recourse of Section

49 otherwise he has to wait for a period of 10 years as envisaged

under Section 127(1) thereof.

19. The High Court took notice of the fact that although the

original owners had completed the procedure to get the land de -

reserved by issuing notice under Section 49 yet as they sold the

plot to the present appellants Section 49 would not apply to the

purchasers. In other words, Section 49 according to the High Court

is not meant for getting the property de -reserved and then to wait

for appropriate time to s ell it in the open market.

20. According to the High Court, the petitioner being a developer

had not taken any steps after purchase , i.e., to issue notice

either under Section 49 or under Section 127 of the Act.

21. The High Court, taking the view, as aforesaid, disposed of the

petition granting liberty to the appellants – herein to take

appropriate steps in accordance with law.

22. We heard Mr. Gagan Sanghi, the learned counsel appearing for

the appellants and Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, the learned counsel

appearing for Respondent No.3 – Corporation.

23. Section 49 of the MRTP Act reads thus:-

8

“49. Obligation to acquire land on refusal of

permission or on grant of permission in certain

cases.—(1) Where—

(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

Clause (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 excepted 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

9

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 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.

24. Section 126 of the MRTP Act reads thus:

10

“126. Acquisition of land required for public

purposes specified in plans

(1) When after the publication of a draft

Regional plan, a Development or any other plan or

town planning scheme, any land is required or

reserved for any of the public purposes specified in

any plan or scheme under this Act at any time, the

Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the

case may be, [any Appropriate Authority may, except

as otherwise provided in section 113A] [acquire the

land,—

"(a) by agreement by paying an amount agreed

to, or

(b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the

land-owner or the lessee, subject, however, to

the lessee paying the lessor or depositing with

the Planning Authority, Development Authority

or Appropriate Authority, as the case may be,

for payment to the lessor, an amount equivalent

to the value of the lessor’s interest to be

determined by any of the said Authorities

concerned [on the basis of the principles laid

down in the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013],

Floor Space Index (FSI) or Transferable

Development Rights (TDR) against the area of

land surrendered free of cost and free from all

encumbrances, and also further additional Floor

Space Index or Transferable Development Rights

against the development or construction of the

amenity on the surrendered land at his cost, as

the Final Development Control Regulations

prepared in this behalf provide, or

(c) by making an application to the State

Government for acquiring such land [under the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013] ,

and the land (together with the amenity, if any

so developed or constructed) so acquired by

agreement or by grant of Floor Space Index or

additional Floor Space Index or Transferable

Development Rights under this section [or under

the provisions of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013], as the case may be, shall vest

absolutely free from all encumbrances in the

11

Planning Authority, Development Authority, or

as the case may be, any Appropriate Authority.

(2) On receipt of such application, if the

State Government is satisfied that the land

specified in the application is needed for the

public purpose therein specified, or 4[if the

State Government (except in cases falling under

section 49 5[and except as provided in section

113A)] itself is of opinion] that any land

included in any such plan is needed for any

public purpose, it may make a declaration to

that effect in the Official Gazette, [in the

manner provided in section 19 of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013], in respect of the said land. The

declaration so published shall, notwithstanding

anything contained in the said Act, be deemed

to be a declaration duly made under the said

section:

[Provided that, subject to the provisions of

sub-section (4), no such declaration shall be

made after the expiry of one year from the date

of publication of the draft Regional Plan,

Development Plan or any other Plan, or Scheme,

as the case may be.]

[(3) On publication of a declaration under the

said 3[section 19], the Collector shall proceed

to take order for the acquisition of the land

under the said Act; and the provisions of that

Act shall apply to the acquisition of the said

land with the modification that the market

value of the land shall be, —

(i) where the land is to be acquired for the

purposes of a new town, the market value

prevailing on the date of publication of the

notification constituting or declaring the

Development Authority for such town;

(ii) where the land is acquired for the

purposes of a Special Planning Authority, the

market value prevailing on the date of

publication of the notification of the area as

undeveloped area; and

(iii) in any other case, the market value on

the date of publication of the interim

development plan, the draft development plan or

the plan for the area or areas for

12

comprehensive development, whichever is

earlier, or as the case may be, the date of

publication of the draft Town Planning Scheme:

Provided that, nothing in this sub -section

shall affect the date for the purpose of

determining the market value of land in respect

of which proceedings for acquisition commenced

before the commencement of the Maharashtra

Regional and Town Planning (Second Amendment)

Act, 1972:

Provided further that, for the purpose of

clause (ii) of this sub -section, the market

value in respect of land included in any

undeveloped area notified under sub -section (1)

of section 40 prior to the commencement of the

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Second

Amendment) Act, 1972, shall be the market value

prevailing on the date of such commencement.]

[(4) 5[Notwithstanding anything contained in

the proviso to sub -section (2) and subsection

(3), if a declaration,] is not made, within the

period referred to in sub -section (2) (or

having been made, the aforesaid period expired

on the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional

and Town Planning 6[(Amendment) Act, 1993),]

the State Government may make a fresh

declaration for acquiring the land [under the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013], in

the manner provided by sub -sections (2) and (3)

of this section, subject to the modification

that the market value of the land shall be the

market value at the date of declaration in the

Official Gazette, made for acquiring the land

afresh.]”

25. We must now look into Section 1 27 of the MRTP Act. Section 127

reads thus:

“127. Lapsing of reservations. —(1) If any land

reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose

specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired

by agreement within ten years from the date on which

a final Regional Plan, or final Development Plan

13

comes into force [or if a declaration under

sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 is not

published in the Official Gazette within such

period, the owner or any person interested in the

land may serve notice, alongwith the documents

showing his title or interest in the said land,

on the Planning Authority, the Development Authority

or, as the case may be, the Appropriate

Authority to that effect; and if within twelve

months] from the date of the service of such notice,

the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid

are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation,

allotment or designation shall be deemed to

have lapsed, and thereupon, the land shall be deemed

to be released from such reservation, allotment

or designation and shall become available to the

owner for the purpose of development as otherwise,

permissible in the case of adjacent land under the

relevant plan.

(2) On lapsing of reservation, allocation or

designation of any land under sub -section (1), the

Government shall notify the same, by an order

published in the Official Gazette.”

26. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is enacted for lapsing of

reservation, allotment or designation for any purpose specified

in the plan. The section prescribes, that if any land reserved,

allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan

under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years

from the date on which a final Regional Plan or Development

Plan comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of

such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act are

not commenced within such period the owner or any , person

interested in the land may serve notice on the Planning

Authority, Development Authority or as the case may be,

Appropriate Authority to that effect. If the concerned

Authority within twelve months from the date of service of such

14

notice, fails to acquire the land or no steps as aforesaid are

initiated for its acquisition the reservation, allotment or

designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the

land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation,

allotment or designation and shall become available to the

owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible

in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.

POSITION OF LAW

27. This Court in Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra and

others reported in 2018 INSC 106 while explaining Section s 49

and 127 of the MRTP Act respectively observed as under:

“9. The scheme of Section 49 of the MRTP Act is to

lay down timelines within which the appropriate

authority must make an application to acquire the

land in respect of which a purchase notice has been

confirmed. The moment any of the conditions

specified in the sub -section (1) are met, the owner

or person affected may serve on the State

Government, within the time and manner prescribed by

regulations, a purchase notice requiring the

appropriate authority to purchase the interest in

the land in accordance with the provisions of this

Act.

10. On the receipt of the purchase notice as per

sub-section (3), the State Government is to

forthwith call from the planning authority or the

appropriate authority such report or records as may

be necessary, which the authority shall then forward

to the State Government as soon as possible but not

later than 30 days from the date of acquisition.

11. In sub-section (4), if the State Government is

satisfied that the conditions specified in sub -

section (1) are fulfilled, it may either confirm the

purchase notice; refuse to confirm the purchase

notice; or direct that planning permission be

granted with or without conditions. Under sub -

15

section (5), if the steps contemplated after service

of purchase notice leads to a situation where the

State Government does not pass any orders thereon,

the notice shall be deemed to have been confirmed at

the expiration of that period. And finally, under

sub-section (7), if within one year from the date of

confirmation of purchase notice, the appropriate

authority fails to make an application to acquire

the land in respect of which the purchase notice has

been confirmed, the reservation, designation,

allotment, indication or restriction on development

of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. Section

49(6), which was deleted by Maharashtra Act 6 of

1976, read as follows:

“Upon confirmation of the notice, the State

Government shall proceed to acquire the land or

that part of any land regarding which the notice

has been confirmed, within one year of the

confirmation of the purchase notice, in accordance

with the provisions of Chapter VII.”

It is clear that, under this provision, if within

one year from the confirmation of the purchase

notice, the State Government did not acquire the

land, then the consequence would be that the

acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. This was

a salutary provision, but seems to have been deleted

so that Section 49 cases are brought on par with

Section 126 cases.

12. The object of Section 49 is thus clear that once

a purchase notice is received by the authorities,

there arises, as the marginal note to the Section

also indicates, an obligation to acquire land. The

timelines contemplated by the section also indicate

that the owner or person affected cannot be left to

hang indefinitely without a decision to follow up

the purchase notice by acquisition of the land in

question.

13. However, it has been argued on behalf of the

State that Section 49 abruptly ends with sub -section

(7), after which there are no timelines indicated as

to what is to happen after the appropriate authority

makes an application to acquire the land within one

year from the date of confirmation of the notice. In

our view, this argument must be rejected, inasmuch

as Section 49(1) itself states that the purchase

notice must require the appropriate authority to

purchase the interest in the land “in accordance

with the provisions of this Act”. This being so,

16

once the appropriate authority makes the necessary

application to acquire the land within time under

Section 49(7), we move over to Sections 126 and 127

of the Act.

14. Under Section 126(1)(c), when after the

publication of a draft regional plan or development

or other plan, any land is required or reserved for

a public purpose, the appropriate authority may make

an application to the State Government, for

acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act.

Under sub-section (2) thereof, on receipt of such

application, if the State Government is satisfied

that the land specified in the application is needed

for the public purpose specified therein, then

excepting the cases falling under Section 49, the

State Government may make a declaration under

Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, to that

effect. However, such declaration under Section

126(2) must be made within a period of one year from

the date of publication of the plan in question.

15. A purchase notice may be served under Section

49, after the expiry of one year from the date of

publication of the plan in question, in which case

Section 126(2) of the Act will not apply. Under

Section 126(4), the State Government may make a

declaration under Section 6 subject to the

modification that the market value of the land shall

be the market value at the date of the declaration

in the official gazette made for acquiring the land.

But this does not mean that the State Government has

carte blanche to do as it pleases. Ordinarily, the

State Government is bound to act under Section

126(4) within a reasonable time from the appropriate

authority making an application to acquire the land.

This should ordinarily be within a period of one

year from the date such an application is made.

However, if such declaration is not made within the

aforesaid period, it will be open for the aggrieved

person to move the Court to direct the State

Government to make the requisite declaration

immediately.

16. But the matter does not end here. Thereafter,

Section 127 kicks in. If a declaration under Section

6 of the Land Acquisition Act is not made within a

period of 10 years from the date on which a plan

comes into force under sub -section (4) of Section

126, the owner or any person interested in the land

may serve a purchase notice on the authorities, and

if within one year from the date of service of such

notice, the land is not acquired or no steps are

17

commenced for its acquisition, the reservation,

allotment or designation shall be deemed to have

lapsed.”

28. In Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 7

SCC 555, a three -Judge Bench, by a majority judgment delivered by

Naolekar, J. framed the question before the Court thus:

“19. The question that requires consideration and

answer in the present case is: Whether the

reservation has lapsed due to the failure of the

planning authority to take steps within the period

of six months from the date of service of the

notice of purchase as stipulated by Section 127 of

the MRTP Act; and also the question as regards

applicability of new Section 11 -A of the LA Act to

the acquisition of land under the MRTP Act.”

29. After setting out Sections 126 and 127 respectively, this

Court then laid down the scheme of Section 126, which makes it

clear that the Section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition

Act is to be issued, in cases where acquisition is made under

Section 126(1)(c), in pursuance of an application by an appropriate

authority to the State Government within one year from the

publication of the plan in question, or by way of the State

Government making a fresh declaration beyond a period of one year

under Section 126(4). This is stated by the Court in para 28 as

follows: (Girnar case SCC para 28)

“28. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 provides for one

year's limitation for publication of the declaration

from the date of publication of the draft plan or

scheme. Sub-section (4), however, empowers the State

Government to make a fresh declaration under Section

6 of the LA Act even if the prescribed period of one

year has expired. This declaration is to be issued

by the State Government for acquisition of the land

without there being any application moved by the

18

planning/local authority under clause ( c) of Section

126(1).”

30. Insofar as Section 127 is concerned, the Court went on to

hold: (Girnar case, paras 31-32)

“31. Section 127 prescribes two -time periods. First,

a period of 10 years within which the acquisition of

the land reserved, allotted or designated has to be

completed by agreement from the date on which a

regional plan or development plan comes into force,

or the proceedings for acquisition of such land

under the MRTP Act or under the LA Act are

commenced. Secondly, if the first part of Section

127 is not complied with or no steps are taken, then

the second part of Section 127 will come into

operation, under which a period of six months is

provided from the date on which the notice has been

served by the owner within which the land has to be

acquired or the steps as aforesaid are to be

commenced for its acquisition. The six month period

shall commence from the date the owner or any person

interested in the land serves a notice on the

planning authority, development authority or

appropriate authority expressing his intent claiming

dereservation of the land. If neither of the things

is done, the reservation shall lapse. If there is no

notice by the owner or any person interested, there

is no question of lapsing reservation, allotment or

designation of the land under the development plan.

Second part of Section 127 stipulates that the

reservation of the land under a development scheme

shall lapse if the land is not acquired or no steps

are taken for acquisition of the land within the

period of six months from the date of service of the

purchase notice. The word “aforesaid” in the

collocation of the words “no steps as aforesaid are

commenced for its acquisition” obviously refers to

the steps contemplated by Section 126 of the MRTP

Act.

32. If no proceedings as provided under Section 127

are taken and as a result thereof the reservation of

the land lapses, the land shall be released from

reservation, allotment or designation and shall be

available to the owner for the purpose of

development. The availability of the land to the

owner for the development would only be for the

purpose which is permissible in the case of adjacent

land under the relevant plan. Thus, even after the

19

release, the owner cannot utilise the land in

whatever manner he deems fit and proper, but its

utilisation has to be in conformity with the

relevant plan for which the adjacent lands are

permitted to be utilised.”

31. The Court then went on to consider Municipal Corpn. of Greater

Bombay v. Dr Hakimwadi Tenants' Assn. reported in 1988 Supp SCC 55,

and was of opinion that, the observations on the expression “no

steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition” stipulated

under Section 127 were obiter in nature. The majority then went on

to state the law under Section 127 as follows: (Girnar case paras

54-57)

“54. When we conjointly read Sections 126 and 127 of

the MRTP Act, it is apparent that the legislative

intent is to expeditiously acquire the land reserved

under the Town Planning Scheme and, therefore,

various periods have been prescribed for acquisition

of the owner's property. The intent and purpose of

the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 has been well

explained in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay

case [Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Dr

Hakimwadi Tenants' Assn. , 1988 Supp SCC 55]. If the

acquisition is left for time immemorial in the hands

of the authority concerned by simply making an

application to the State Government for acquiring

such land under the LA Act, 1894, then the authority

will simply move such an application and if no such

notification is issued by the State Government for

one year of the publication of the draft regional

plan under Section 126(2) read with Section 6 of the

LA Act, wait for the notification to be issued by

the State Government by exercising suo motu power

under sub-section (4) of Section 126; and till then

no declaration could be made under Section 127 as

regards lapsing of reservation and contemplated

declaration of land being released and available for

the landowner for his utilisation as permitted under

Section 127. Section 127 permitted inaction on the

part of the acquisition authorities for a period of

10 years for dereservation of the land. Not only

that, it gives a further time for either to acquire

the land or to take steps for acquisition of the

land within a period of six months from the date of

service of notice by the landowner for

20

dereservation. The steps towards commencement of the

acquisition in such a situation would necessarily be

the steps for acquisition and not a step which may

not result into acquisition and merely for the

purpose of seeking time so that Section 127 does not

come into operation.

55. Providing the period of six months after the

service of notice clearly indicates the intention of

the legislature of an urgency where nothing has been

done in regard to the land reserved under the plan

for a period of 10 years and the owner is deprived

of the utilisation of his land as per the user

permissible under the plan. When mandate is given in

a section requiring compliance within a particular

period, the strict compliance is required therewith

as introduction of this section is with legislative

intent to balance the power of the State of “eminent

domain”. The State possessed the power to take or

control the property of the owner for the benefit of

public cause, but when the State so acted, it was

obliged to compensate the injured upon making just

compensation. Compensation provided to the owner is

the release of the land for keeping the land under

reservation for 10 years without taking any steps

for acquisition of the same.

56. The underlying principle envisaged in Section

127 of the MRTP Act is either to utilise the land

for the purpose it is reserved in the plan in a

given time or let the owner utilise the land for the

purpose it is permissible under the town planning

scheme. The step taken under the section within the

time stipulated should be towards acquisition of

land. It is a step of acquisition of land and not

step for acquisition of land. It is trite that

failure of authorities to take steps which result in

actual commencement of acquisition of land cannot be

permitted to defeat the purpose and object of the

scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act by merely

moving an application requesting the Government to

acquire the land, which Government may or may not

accept. Any step which may or may not culminate in

the step for acquisition cannot be said to be a step

towards acquisition.

57. It may also be noted that the legislature while

enacting Section 127 has deliberately used the word

“steps” (in plural and not in singular) which are

required to be taken for acquisition of the land. On

construction of Section 126 which provides for

acquisition of the land under the MRTP Act, it is

apparent that the steps for acquisition of the land

21

would be issuance of the declaration under Section 6

of the LA Act. Clause ( c) of Section 126(1) merely

provides for a mode by which the State Government

can be requested for the acquisition of the land

under Section 6 of the LA Act. The making of an

application to the State Government for acquisition

of the land would not be a step for acquisition of

the land under reservation. Sub -section (2) of

Section 126 leaves it open to the State Government

either to permit the acquisition or not to permit,

considering the public purpose for which the

acquisition is sought for by the authorities. Thus,

the steps towards acquisition would really commence

when the State Government permits the acquisition

and as a result thereof publishes the declaration

under Section 6 of the LA Act.”

32. The scheme of Sections 126(2) and (4) was again reiterated in

para 61 as follows: ( Girnar case para 161)

“61. Proviso to sub -section (2) of Section 126

prohibits publication of the declaration after the

expiry of one year from the date of publication of

draft regional plan, development plan or any other

plan or scheme. Thus, from the date of publication

of the draft regional plan, within one year an

application has to be moved under clause ( c) of

Section 126(1) which should culminate into a

declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act. As per

the proviso to sub -section (2) of Section 126, the

maximum period permitted between the publication of

a draft regional plan and declaration by the

Government in the Official Gazette under Section

126(2) is one year. In other words, during one year

of the publication of the draft regional plan, two

steps need to be completed, namely, ( i) application

by the appropriate authority to the State Government

under Section 126(1)( c); and (ii) declaration by the

State Government on receipt of the application

mentioned in clause ( c) of Section 126(1) on

satisfaction of the conditions specified under

Section 126(2). The only exception to this provision

has been given under Section 126(4).”

33. In Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji

Dawkher reported in (2013) 5 SCC 627 , this Court reiterated the

findings given in Girnar (supra) majority judgment, and held that

22

there was no conflict between the judgment in Hakimwadi (supra) and

the majority judgment in Girnar(supra). This Court , thereafter,

went on to hold:

“42. We are further of the view that the majority

in Girnar Traders [Girnar Traders v. State of

Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555] had rightly observed

that steps towards the acquisition would really

commence when the State Government takes active

steps for the acquisition of the particular piece of

land which leads to publication of the declaration

under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Any other

interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127

of the 1966 Act will make the provisions wholly

unworkable and leave the landowner at the mercy of

the Planning Authority and the State Government.

43. The expression “no steps as aforesaid” used in

Section 127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the

context of the provisions of the 1894 Act and mere

passing of a resolution by the Planning Authority or

sending of a letter to the Collector or even the

State Government cannot be treated as commencement

of the proceedings for the acquisition of land under

the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act. By enacting Sections

125 to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State Legislature

has made a definite departure from the scheme of

acquisition enshrined in the 1894 Act. But a

holistic reading of these provisions makes it clear

that while engrafting the substance of some of the

provisions of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and

leaving out other provisions, the State Legislature

has ensured that the landowners/other interested

persons, whose land is utilised for execution of the

development plan/town planning scheme, etc., are not

left high and dry. This is the reason why time -limit

of ten years has been prescribed in Section 31(5)

and also under Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act

for the acquisition of land, with a stipulation that

if the land is not acquired within six months of the

service of notice under Section 127 or steps are not

commenced for acquisition, reservation of the land

will be deemed to have lapsed. Shri Naphade's

interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and

127, if accepted, will lead to absurd results and

the landowners will be deprived of their right to

use the property for an indefinite period without

being paid compe nsation. That would tantamount to

depriving the citizens of their property without the

23

sanction of law and would result in violation of

Article 300-A of the Constitution.”

34. It is, thus, clear that the scheme of Sections 126 and 127

respectively would leave nobody in doubt, for the reason 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.

35. This Court in Chhabildas (supra) summed up the position in law

as under:

“24.1. In all Section 49 cases, where a purchase

notice has been served and is confirmed within the

period specified, the appropriate authority must

make an application to acquire the land within one

year from the date of confirmation of the notice. If

it does not do so, the reservation, designation,

etc. shall be deemed to have lapsed.

24.2. If within the period specified in Section

49(7), the appropriate authority makes the requisite

application, then the State Government may acquire

the land by making a declaration under Section 6 of

the Land Acquisition Act as set out under Section

126(4), wherein the market value shall be the market

value of the land as on the date of Section 6

declaration. Ordinarily, such declaration must be

made within 1 year of the date of receipt of the

requisite application. In case this is not done, it

will be open to the aggrieved person to move the

Court to direct the State Government to make the

requisite declaration immediately.

24.3. If 10 years have passed from the date of

publication of the plan in question, and a purchase

notice has been served under Section 127, and no

steps have been taken within a period of one year

from the date of service of such notice, all

24

proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thus,

even in cases covered by Section 49, the drill of

Section 126(4) and Section 127 will have to be

followed, subsequent to the appropriate authority

making an application to acquire the land within the

period specified in Section 49(7). ”

36. We take notice of the following:

a. On 11-01-1967, the MRTP Act came into force in the State of

Maharashtra.

b. The property in question – Vacant plot admeasuring 50,138. Sq

ft in Survey No. 81/3 ( NEW) 3 (old) in Mo uza Rajapeth

Amravati, Maharashtra was originally owned jointly by Smt.

Akhtar Bano Rashid, Abdul Majid A . Samad and Mohd. Sajid A .

Samad respectively which was a part of the bigger plot

admeasuring 2.47 hectare.

c. The erstwhile owners had submitted Land Development Plan for

development of 2.47 hectare. The respondent No. 3 herein

sanctioned the development plan for residential area and the

remaining area admeasuring 50,138 sq. ft. was reserved for

Government school.

d. On 25-02-1993, the revised development plan for Amra vati came

into effect in which the property in question was shown as

reserved for a private school i.e., for the respondent No. 5.

Respondent No. 5 is a Public Trust registered under the

Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950.

e. From 1993 till 2006 no action was taken by the respondents to

acquire the property for the private school.

f. On 04-07-2006, the erstwhile owners served purchase notice

under Section 49 of the Act, 1966 on respondent No. 1 calling

25

upon him either to acquire the said property or release it

from reservation.

g. On 02-01-2007, the respondent No. 1 confirmed the purchase

notice issued by the erstwhile owners.

h. By a letter dated 02 -01-2007, the respondent No. 1 directed

the respondent No. 5 to complete the acquisition proceedings

within twelve months from the 02 -01-2007 failing which the

reservation would lapse and the property would stand released

from reservation.

i. Respondent No. 1 was aware that the land acquisition

proceedings had to be completed within twelve months from 02 -

01-2007 i.e., by 02 -01-2008 failing which the property would

stand de-reserved by operation of Section 49(7) of the MRTP

Act.

j. On 29-12-2007, i.e., just three days before the expiry of the

last date of acquiring the property i.e., 02 -01-2008, the

respondent No. 5 issued a letter to the respondent No. 7 to

commence the land acquisition proceedings under Section 126 of

the MRTP Act.

k. On 13-08-2014, erstwhile owner issued purchase notice under

Section 127 of the MRTP Act to Respondent Nos. 1,3,4 and 6

requesting them to acquire their land.

l. Indisputably, till 2018 the respondent No. 3 did not make any

application to acquire the property and no notification under

Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Ac t, 1894 was published by

the competent authority.

m. Indisputably, no amount towards compensation was deposited by

26

the respondent No. 5 with any authority for the said property.

n. Thus, by operation of Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act

reservation of the property lapsed on 02 -01-2008 and the

erstwhile owners were free to use the same as permissible in

law.

o. On 09-04-2015, the erstwhile owners submitted an application

addressed to the respondent No. 4 seeking permission to

construct boundary wall surrounding the property with a view

to prevent encroachment.

p. The respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 27 -08-2015 declined to

grant the permission to put up the wall on the ground that the

property was reserved for respondent No. 5.

q. On 30-12-2015 by registered sale deed the erstwhile owners

sold the property to the appellants herein.

r. On 16-03-2016 the appellants herein filed a writ petition

seeking direction that either the respondent No. 5 shall

deposit the amount towards compensation for the land reserved

for it since 1993 or declare that the reservation had lapsed

under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act.

37. According to the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, in view of the aforesaid , the reservation lapsed

even under Section 127 on 13 -08-2015.

38. It is very unfortunate to note that although the land was

reserved almost 33 years back for the benefit of Respondent No.5

yet the said respondent was unable to avail the benefit of the

same.

27

39. It does not make any good sense to keep a plot reserved in a

development plan for past 33 years. The Authority did not allow the

original owners to use the land and are now not permitting even the

purchasers i.e. the appellants – herein to utilize the land.

40. This Court in Chhabildas (supra) after explaining the

provisions of Sections 49 and 127 of the MRT Act respectively

thought fit to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to do

complete justice having regard to the long and inordinate delay in

acquiring the land.

41. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to paras 25 to 31 of

the Chhabildas (supra) as under:

“25. The learned counsel appearing for the State has

relied upon this Court’s judgment in Prakash R.

Gupta v. Lonavala Municipal Council and others,

(2009) 1 SCC 514, wherein this Court held that the

scheme contemplated by Section 49 is totally

different from that of Section 127, for the reason

that there is no period of 10 years in Section 49 as

mentioned in Section 127.

26. This judgment does not carry the matter any

further as it is clear that, once an application is

made within the requisite period contained in

Section 49(7), land acquisition must follow in terms

of Section 49(1) to purchase the interest in the

land, in accordance with the provisions of the MRTP

Act, as indicated above.

27. This Court, in Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of

Maharashtra & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 154, held that

where an inordinately long delay takes place from

the date on which the appropriate authority makes an

application to acquire the land (in that case 20

years), the land in question stands released from

reservation.

28. In the aforesaid judgment, the purchase notice

under Section 49 of the Act was dated 17th August,

2000. The Director, Town Planning, wrote a letter to

28

the Chief Officer of the Khopoli Municipal Council

stating that proceedings for land acquisition for an

Agricultural Produce Market Yard would be initiated

within one year from 16th March, 2001. Consequently,

the Khopoli Municipal Council wrote a letter on 23rd

April, 2001 to the Agricultural Produce Market

Committee to initiate acquisition proceedings. As

nothing was done, the Appellant ran from pillar to

post and ultimately filed a writ petition in

February, 2004, complaining that the Respondents are

neither acquiring the land belonging to the

Appellant nor releasing the same from reservation

for the Agricultural Produce Market Yard. The High

Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition stating

that as the provisions of Section 127 were not

attracted, there could be no lapse. This Court,

after referring to Sections 49 and 127 of the Act,

held:

“12. We think it pertinent to mention here that

APMC, Respondent 5, even after service of notice,

has not cared to contest this appeal. Also, we

think it relevant to mention that till date no

steps appear to have been taken for acquisition of

the land in question or to release the same. The

land of the appellant, in our opinion, cannot be

held up, without any authority of law, as neither

the same is purchased till date by the respondent

authorities, nor acquired under any law, nor the

appellant is being allowed to use the land for the

last more than twenty years.”

29. It thereafter referred to Vijayalakshmi v. Town

Planning Member (2006) 8 SCC 502 and Girnar (supra)

and then held:

“15. In view of the principle of law laid down by

this Court, as above, we are of the view that in

the present case since neither have steps been

taken by the authorities concerned for acquisition

of the land, nor is the land of the appellant

purchased under purchase notice, nor is he allowed

to use the land for the last more than twenty

years, the land will have to be released as the

appellant cannot be deprived from utilising his

property for an indefinite period.

xxx xxx xxx

18. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside

the impugned order passed by the High Court. Since

29

no steps appear to have been taken till date for

the last more than twenty years either for

acquisition or for purchase of the land under the

MRTP Act, 1966 by the authorities concerned, as

such, the land in question stands released from

reservation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.”

30. The aforesaid judgment lays down that since more

than 20 years had elapsed since the date of the

purchase notice under Section 49 on the facts of

that case, the land will have to be released from

acquisition. No doubt this Court held that over 20

years is an inordinately long period of delay, and

therefore, lapsing has taken place under Section 127

of the MRTP Act. However, on the facts of that case,

no purchase notice under Section 127 was issued

after 10 years had elapsed from the date of

publication of the requisite plan. This being the

case, we read the judgment as having allowed a lapse

to take place, in view of the inordinately long

delay of over 20 years, by really doing complete

justice on the facts of that case under Article 142

of the Constitution of India.

31. In the present case, 15 years have passed since

the date of publication of the development plan, and

over 10 years have passed since the date of the

purchase notice issued under Section 49. Considering

the fact that there has been no stay at any stage by

any Court, it is clear that an inordinately long

period of time has elapsed, both since the date of

publication of the development plan, as well as the

date of the purchase notice served under Section 49.

No doubt, the letter of 26.9.2008 shows that an

application was made within the requisite time

period to acquire the aforesaid land. However, on

the facts of this case, since after the aforesaid

letter nothing has been done to acquire the

appellant’s property, we are of the view that the

reservation contained in the development plan as

well as acquisition proposal have lapsed. We make it

clear that we hold this in order to do complete

justice between the parties under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India. However, in all future cases

that may arise under the provisions of Section 49,

the drill of Section 127 must be followed, i.e. that

after 10 years have elapsed from the date of

publication of the relevant plan, a second purchase

notice must be served in accordance with the

provisions of Section 127, in order that lapsing can

take place under the aforesaid section. With these

observations, the appeal is disposed of. ”

30

42. In the context of delay, we would also like to refer to the

decision of this Court in the case of Bhavnagar Universit v.

Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Others reported in AIR 23 SC 511

more particularly paras 27, 32 to 35 and 38 respectively as under:

“27. An owner of a property, subject to reasonable

restrictions which may be imposed by the

Legislature, is entitled to enjoy the property in

any manner he likes. A right to use a property in a

particular manner or in other words a restriction

imposed on user thereof except in the mode and

manner laid down under statute would not be

presumed.

xxx xxx xxx

32. Subsection (2) of Section 20, however, carves

out an exception to the exercise of powers by the

State as regards acquisition of the land for the

purpose of carrying out the development of the area

in the manner provided for therein; a bare reading

whereof leaves no manner of doubt that in the event

the land referred to under subsection (1) of Section

20 thereof is not acquired or proceedings under the

Land Acquisition Act are not commenced and further

in the event an owner or a person interested in the

land serves a notice in the manner specified

therein, certain consequences ensue, namely, the

designation of the land shall be deemed to have

lapsed. A legal fiction, therefore, has been created

in the said provision.

33. The purpose and object of creating a legal

fiction in the statute is well known. When a legal

fiction is created, it must be given its full

effect. In East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury

Borough Council, [(1951) 2 All.E.R 587], Lord

Asquith, J. stated the law in the following terms:"

If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of

affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited

from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences

and incidents which, if the putative state of

affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have

flowed from or accompanied it. One of these in this

case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents.

The statute says that you must imagine a certain

state of affairs; it does not say that having done

so, you must cause or permit your imagination to

31

boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries

of that state of affairs."

The said principle has been reiterated by this Court

in M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, A.P.

& Anr. [(1994) 2 SCC 323]. See also Indian Oil

Corporation Limited v. Chief Inspector of Factories

& Ors. etc., [(1998) 5 SCC 738], Voltas Limited,

Bombay v. Union of India & Ors.,[(1995) Supp. 2 SCC

498], Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate,

Allahabad, U.P. & Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 537] and G.

Viswanathan etc. v. Hon'ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu

Legislative Assembly, Madras & Anr. [(1996) 2 SCC

353].

34. The relevant provisions of the Act are

absolutely clear, unambiguous and implicit. A plain

meaning of the said provisions, in our considered

view, would lead to only one conclusion, namely,

that in the event a notice is issued by the owner of

the land or other person interested therein asking

the authority to acquire the land upon expiry of the

period specified therein viz. ten years from the

date of issuance of final development plan and in

the event pursuant to or in furtherance thereof no

action for acquisition thereof is taken, the

designation shall lapse.

35. This Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater

Bombay's case (supra), in no uncertain terms while

construing the provisions of Section 127 of the

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

held the period of ten years as reasonable in the

following words:

"While the contention of learned counsel

appearing for the appellant that the words 'six

months from the date of service of such notice'

in Section 127 of the Act were not susceptible of

a literal construction, must be accepted, it must

be borne in mind that the period of six months

provided by Section 127 upon the expiry of which

the reservation of the land under a Development

Plan lapses, is a valuable safeguard to the

citizen against arbitrary and irrational

executive action. Section 127 of the Act is a

fetter upon the power of eminent domain. By

enacting Section 127 the legislature has struck a

balance between the competing claims of the

interests of the general public as regards the

rights of an individual."

32

It was observed that:

"The Act lays down the principles of fixation by

providing first, by the proviso to Section

126(2) that no such declaration under subsection

(2) shall be made after the expiry of three

years from the date of publication of the draft

regional plan, development plan or any other

plan, secondly, by enacting subsection (4) of

Section 126 that if a declaration is not made

within the period referred to in subsection (2),

the State Government may make a fresh

declaration but, in that event, the market value

of the land shall be the market value at the

date of the declaration under Section 6 and not

the market value at the date of the notification

under Section 4, and thirdly, by Section 127

that if any land reserved, allotted or

designated for any purpose in any development

plan is not acquired by agreement within 10

years from the date on which a final regional

plan or development plan comes into force or if

proceedings for the acquisition of such land

under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced

within such period, such land shall be deemed to

be released from such reservation, allotment or

designation and become available to the owner

for the purpose of development on the failure of

the Appropriate Authority to initiate any steps

for its acquisition within a period of six

months from the date of service of a notice by

the owner or any person interested in the land.

It cannot be doubted that a period of 10 years

is long enough., The Development or the Planning

Authority must take recourse to acquisition with

some amount of promptitude in order that the

compensation paid to the expropriated owner

bears a just relation to the real value of the

land as otherwise, the compensation paid for the

acquisition would be wholly illusory. Such

fetter on statutory powers is in the interest of

the general public and the conditions subject to

which they can be exercised must be strictly

followed."

It is true that Section 21 of the Act imposes a

statutory obligation on the part of the State

and the appropriate authorities to revise the

development plan and for the said purpose

Section 9 to 20 'so far as may be' would be

applicable thereto, but thereby the rights of

the owners in terms of subsection (2) of Section

20 are not taken away.

33

xxx xxx xxx

38. Section 21 does not envisage that despite the

fact that in terms of subsection (2) of Section 20,

the designation of land shall lapse, the same, only

because a draft revised plan is made, would

automatically give rise to revival thereof. Section

20 does not manifest a legislative intent to curtail

or take away the right acquired by a landowner under

Section 22 of getting the land defreezed. In the

event the submission of the learned Solicitor

General is accepted the same would completely render

the provisions of Section 20(2) otiose and

redundant.”

43. In the last, we may refer to the decision of this Court in the

case of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke

and Chemicals Ltd. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 705 more particularly

paras 53, 54 and 55 respectively therein:

“53. The right of property is now considered to be

not only a constitutional right but also a human

right.

54. The Declaration of Human Rights (1789)

enunciates under Article 17

"since the right to property is inviolable

and sacred, no one may be deprived thereof,

unless public necessity, legally ascertained,

obviously requires it and just and prior

indemnity has been paid".

Further under Article 217 (IIII) of 10

th

December,

1948, adopted in the General Assembly Resolution it

is stated that : (i) Everyone has the right to own

property alone as well as in association with

others. (ii) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of

his property.

55. Earlier human rights were existed to the claim

of individuals right to health, right to livelihood,

right to shelter and employment etc. but now human

rights have started gaining a multifacet approach.

Now property rights are also incorporated within the

definition of human rights. Even claim of adverse

possession has to be read in consonance with human

rights. As President John Adams (17971801)put it,:

34

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as

liberty."

Adding,

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that

property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and

that there is not a force of law and public justice

to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence".”

44. The facts before us are very clear. We once again reiterate

them before we close this matter:

(i) On 13-08-2014, the erstwhile owners issued purchase

notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

(ii) Development Plan came into effect on 25 -02-1993.

(iii) The land had to be acquired within ten years of 25 -02-

1993 in view of Section 127 of the Act which indisputably was

not done.

(iv) After the issuance of notice under Section 127 of the

MRTP Act on 13-08-2014, the appropriate authority could have

acquired the land within twelve months, i.e., on/or before 13 -

08-2015. The same was not done. This puts an end to the entire

debate.

(v) The reservation could be said to have lapsed even under

Section 127 on 13-08-2015.

45. In such circumstances , when the erstwhile owners sold the land

to the appellants herein on 30 -12-2015, there was no reservation .

35

46. This Court in the case of Prafulla C. Dave and Ors. v.

Municipal Commissioner and Ors. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 90 held

thus:

“21. Under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act,

reservation, allotment or designation of any land for

any public purpose specified in a development plan is

deemed to have lapsed and such land is deemed to be

released only after notice on the appropriate authority

is served calling upon such authority either to acquire

the land by agreement or to initiate proceedings for

acquisition of the land either under the M.R.T.P. Act

or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said

authority fails to comply with the demand raised

thereunder. Such notice can be issued by the owner or

any person interested in the land only if the land is

not acquired or proceeding for acquisition are not

initiated within 10 years from the date on which the

final development plan had come into force. After

service of notice by the land owner or the person

interested, a mandatory period of six months has to be

lapsed within which time the authority can still

initiate the necessary action. Section 127 of the

M.R.T.P. Act or any other provision of the M.R.T.P. Act

does not provide for automatic lapsing of the

acquisition, reservation or designation of the land

included in any development plan on the expiry of 10

years. On the contrary, upon expiry of the said period

of 10 years, the land owner or the person interested is

mandated by the statute to take certain positive steps

i.e. to issue/serve a notice and there must occur a

corresponding failure on the part of the authority to

take requisite steps as demanded therein in order to

bring into effect the consequences contemplated by

Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act ………”

(Emphasis supplied)

47. Thus, the principles underlying in Section 127 of the MRTP Act

is either to utilize the land for the purpose for which it is

reserved in the timeline given or let the owner utilize the land

for the purpose as permissible under the town planning scheme. The

reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed if no steps are taken

for acquisition of the said land within the prescribed period.

36

Indisputably, in the present case, the respondents have not taken

any steps to issue notification after receipt of the notice.

48. In Kolhapur Municipal corporation and Others v. Vasant Mahadev

Patil (dead), through LRs & Ors. reported in (2022) 5 SCC 758,

this Court held that when by operation of law the reservation is

deemed to have lapsed under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, the

reservation lapses for all purposes and for all times to come. In

the said decision, this Court was further pleased to observe that

on the deemed lapse of such reservation under Section 127(1) of

the said Act no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court

to direct acquisition of that land and pay compensation to the

landowners as on the lapse of such reservation , the land becomes

free and the landowners can use the land as if there was no

reservation.

49. This Court in Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai v. Hiraman

Sitaram Deorukhar reported in (2019) 14 SCC 411 was examining the

reservation of land for a garden in a Development Plan in the year

1966 but the same was not acquired even after purchase notice was

served by the landowner. However, relying upon the judgment of

this Court reported as Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.

Muddappa reported in (1991) 4 SCC 54 and some other judgments, it

was held that the land reserved for public park cannot be

permitted to be converted for other public purposes.

50. 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

37

use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot

be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The statute has provided

a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the

Act. Additional one year is granted to the landowner to serve a

notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act

42 of 2015. Such timeline is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to

by the State or by the authorities under the State.

51. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order

passed by the High Court is set aside. It is declared that the

reservation of the plot in question could be said to have lapsed

by efflux of time in view of the provisions under Section s 126 and

127 of the MRTP Act respectively.

52. Having regard to the gross delay of almost thirty years even

without the aid of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, we would have

declared the reservation to have lapsed in exercise of our

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete

justice in the matter.

53. Pending applications if any shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………………J

(J.B. PARDIWALA)

…………………………………………J

(R. MAHADEVAN)

NEW DELHI:

25

th

FEBRUARY, 2025.