REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 510 OF 2022

The Kolhapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Vasant Mahadev Patil (Dead)

Through L.R.s & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2022

The Kolhapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Vasant Mahadev Patil (Dead)

Through L.R.s & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay in Writ Petition No.5310 of 2018 by which the Division Bench of

the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private

respondents herein – original writ petitioners and has issued the writ of

Mandamus directing the appellants – Kolhapur Municipal Corporation

1

and others to acquire the land in question and to issue a declaration

under Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as “Act of 2013”), Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and others

have preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 510 of 2022.

1.1In the aforesaid Writ Petition No.5310 of 2018 after the judgment

was delivered on 13.08.2018, the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation

preferred one further Civil Application No.2461 of 2018 in Writ Petition

No. 5310 of 2018 for appropriate order directing the original writ

petitioners to accept the TDR in lieu of monetary compensation, which

has been rejected by the High Court by order dated 10.12.2018. The

same is the subject matter of the present Civil Appeal No.511 of 2022

preferred by the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.

2.The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:-

2.1The dispute is with respect to the land bearing R. S. No. 138,

ad-measuring 3 Hectors and 65 Ares, situated at E ward, Near New

Palace, Kolhapur owned by the original writ petitioners. The

development plan for the City of Kolhapur was sanctioned on

18.12.1999. Different portions of the land in question were reserved in

the sanctioned development plan for various public purposes namely,

parking, garden, extension of sewage treatment plant etc. That as the

land in question was not acquired and/or used for the public purposes for

2

which the same was reserved under the sanctioned development plan,

the original writ petitioners – landowners served a notice under Section

127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

(hereinafter referred to as the “MRTP Act”) on 02.01.2012.

2.2By Resolution dated 18.02.2012, the General Body of the

Municipal Corporation resolved to acquire the said property and

accordingly on 17.04.2012, a proposal was submitted by the Municipal

Corporation to the State Government for compulsory acquisition of the

subject property. The District Collector passed an order dated

07/09.07.2012 directing that the proposal for acquisition be transferred

to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (11), Kolhapur for necessary

action. By the said order, the Corporation was directed to deposit 25%

of the amount before publication of the notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1894”), 25%

of estimated compensation amount before the publication of a

declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and remaining 50% of the

estimated compensation amount before the declaration of award under

Section 11 of the Act of 1894.

2.3That on enactment of the Act of 2013, the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 came to be repealed. Therefore, the land in question was

subjected to the provisions of the Act of 2013. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer directed the Corporation to deposit the amount of

3

Rs.77,65,12,000/- towards compensation vide its letter dated 06.10.2015

in order to issue necessary orders as per Section 19 of the Act of 2013.

It appears that the Corporation was not in a financial position to pay

such a huge compensation amount and so by letter dated 17.03.2016

requested the original writ petitioners – landowners to accept the

Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of compensation amount

as per the Development Control Rules of the Corporation. The original

writ petitioners also at the relevant time accepted the said proposal and

submitted an application dated 12.05.2017 for grant of TDR. In the

meantime, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by its letter dated

22.09.2016 informed the Municipal Corporation to deposit 30% of the

total amount of compensation and also informed that the land under

reservation fell within the flood affected area due to its proximity to

'Jayanti Nala’ and considering the valuation of the said area as per the

market value of 2016-l7(A.S.R.), the amount of compensation was

reduced from Rs. 77,65,12,000/- to Rs. 43,41,29,400/-.

2.4It appears that there was some correspondence between the

original writ petitioners and the Corporation with respect to the TDR

proposal. According to the Corporation, the grant of TDR was always

subject to the provisions of the Development Control Rules and further

subject to satisfying the conditions mentioned in the said Rules.

According to the Municipal Corporation as per the Development Control

4

Rules, any owner before the grant of TDR will have to surrender the land

under reservation by carrying out necessary developments according to

prevailing Byelaws at his own cost and free of encumbrances.

According to the Corporation, the reserved area was coming within High

Flood Line and every year for a period of fifteen days to one month, the

said area gets flooded during rainy season. According to the

Corporation, the reserved land/area is flood affected and a rivulet named

‘Jayanti Nala’ passes through the said area under reservation.

Therefore, as per the Corporation, before the TDR proposal could be

considered, it was necessary to carry out the required development work

upon the said reserved land for making it suitable for the public purpose

as per the reservation, to be carried out by the original writ petitioners –

landowners. According to the Corporation, if the said developments are

not done, the land under reservation will not be able to be utilized for the

purpose for which it is reserved. There were various correspondences

between the parties. However, thereafter the writ petitioners did not

agree to avail of the TDR and the original writ petitioners – landowners

filed present writ petition before the High Court and prayed for the

following reliefs:-

a.Rule be issued and records and proceedings be

called for;

b.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ

of mandamus and/ or any other appropriate writ,

5

order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus

thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to

forthwith publish a final notification under sub

section (2) and (4) of the Sec. 126 of the M.R.T.P.

Act read with Sec. 19 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act;

2013;

c.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ

of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus

thereby directing the Respondent No. 3 Corporation

to forthwith deposit the amount of compensation i.e.

Rs. 77,64,12000/- with the Respondent No. 2 and 7

and further the Respondent No. 2 and 7 may be

directed to forthwith release the said amount of

compensation to the Petitioners;

d.Such further and other order be made as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

interest of justice and in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

2.5The said petition was vehemently opposed by the Municipal

Corporation. An affidavit in reply opposing the writ petition was filed on

behalf of the original respondent No.6 – Municipal Corporation and

others. It was vehemently submitted that the reservation has lapsed in

view of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. It was also submitted that it is not

possible for the Corporation to acquire the land on payment of huge sum

of Rs.43,41,29,400/-. It was submitted that it was beyond the financial

capacity of the Corporation to pay such a huge compensation and it was

beyond their budgetary provision and had grave financial implication. It

6

was also pointed out that even the TDR proposal had not been

materialized as the original writ petitioners were not agreeable to fulfill

their obligations for grant of TDR as per Development Control Rules. It

was also specifically pointed out that unless there is development carried

out at the cost of the original writ petitioners – landowners, it is not

possible for the Corporation to use the land for the purpose for which it is

reserved. It was specifically pointed out that the land in question is a wet

land and that the area is flood affected and a rivulet named ‘Jayanti

Nala’ passes through the said area under reservation. It was also

specifically pointed out that the reserved area is coming within the High

Flood Line and every year for a period of fifteen days to one month the

said area gets flooded during the rainy season. Therefore, it was

pointed out that it was necessary to carry out the required development

work upon the said reserved area for making it suitable for the purposes

as per reservation. It was also pointed out that if the said developments

are not done, the land under reservation shall not be able to be utilized

for the purposes it is reserved.

2.6Before the High Court, the original writ petitioners tendered

affidavits dated 01.08.2018 and 07.08.2018 recording that they do not

wish to avail of TDR (as observed by the High Court in paragraph No.5).

Thereafter by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has

7

disposed of the writ petition and issued the following directions in

exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:-

(i)We direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer (11),

Kolhapur to communicate to the third respondent -

Municipal Corporation the amount which is required

to be deposited by the said Municipal Corporation

as a condition precedent for issuing a declaration

under Section 19 of the said Act of 2013. The

communication demanding the amount shall be

issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer within

one month from the date on which this judgment

and order is uploaded;

(ii)We may record here that there is no dispute about

the reservation of the subject land in the sanctioned

development plan and therefore, in view of the

proviso to Section 125 of the MRTP Act, the

acquisition under the said Act of 2013 shall

commence from the stage of declaration under

section 19 thereof;

(iii)Within a period of two months from the demand for

payment made by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer as aforesaid, the third respondent shall

deposit the requisite amount with the

Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer;

(iv)Within a period of one month from the date of

deposit of the requisite amount by the third

respondent, a declaration under Section 19 of the

said Act of 2013 shall be issued/published in

accordance with law;

(v)The acquisition proceedings shall be completed and

compensation shall be paid as expeditiously as

possible in accordance with law and in any case

8

within a period of one year from the date on which

the declaration under Section 19 of the said Act of

2013 is published;

(vi)Writ petition is disposed of with the above

directions;

(vii)For reporting compliance with the above directions

by the third respondent the petition shall be listed

under the caption of directions on 26

th

November

2018.

2.7While issuing the aforesaid directions, the High Court has

observed that as there was already a resolution passed by the General

Body of the Municipal Corporation to acquire the subject lands by taking

recourse to law of compulsory acquisition, therefore, there is no option

for the Municipal Corporation but to acquire the said land by taking

recourse to the Act of 2013.

2.8Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the High court of Judicature at

Bombay in Writ Petition No.5310 of 2018, the Kolhapur Municipal

Corporation and others have preferred the present Civil Appeal No.510

of 2022.

2.9It appears that after the impugned judgment and order dated

13.08.2018 passed by the High Court and after the above directions

were issued, the appellants – Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and others

filed one Civil Application No.2461 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.5310 of

9

2018 for modification of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 and

prayed for the direction to the original writ petitioners to accept the TDR

in lieu of monetary compensation. It was also further prayed for directing

that in the event of the failure of the Corporation to deposit the amount,

the consequences under the MRTP Act, 1966 and the Act of 2013

should follow. Both the aforesaid prayers were rejected by the High

Court vide order dated 10.12.2018 by observing that the original writ

petitioners are not consenting to accept the TDR in lieu of monetary

compensation. The order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Civil Application

No.2461 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.5310 of 2018 is the subject matter of

present Civil Appeal No.511 of 2022.

3.Ms. Aparajita Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf

of the Corporation has vehemently submitted that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error

in issuing a writ of Mandamus and directing the Corporation to acquire

the land in question and to pay the compensation to the original

landowners by issuing a declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013.

3.1It is submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciated the

fact that as such in the present case, in view of the provisions of Section

126 r/w Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966, the reservation had lapsed.

It is submitted that once by operation of law, the reservation had lapsed,

10

no writ of Mandamus could have been issued directing acquisition of the

land for which it was reserved under the development plan.

3.2 It is submitted that in the present case, the subject land was

reserved under the Development Plan in the year 2001 and different

parts of the land were reserved for the purposes of garden, parking and

extension of sewage treatment plant and 12 mtr DP Road. It is

submitted that it is an admitted position that for more than ten years,

neither the land was acquired nor the declaration in relation to it was

published under Section 126(2) or (4) of the MRTP Act. It is submitted

that thereafter the respondents served a notice to the Corporation under

Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 02.01.2012 requesting the Corporation

to acquire the land. It is submitted that however, no steps were taken to

acquire the land and the acquisition proceedings did not commence

even within twelve months from the date of service of such notice. It is

therefore submitted that in view of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, if within

ten years from the date on which the final Development Plan comes into

force and the land reserved is not acquired by agreement nor a

declaration under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of Section 126 has

been published in the Official Gazette and thereafter the landowner

serves a notice to the Development Authority to acquire the land, and, if

within twelve months from the date of the service of such notice, neither

the land is acquired nor steps are commenced for its acquisition, the

11

reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed. Heavy reliance is placed

on the decision of this Court in the case of Girnar Traders Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 555 , which has been

subsequently followed in the other decisions of this Court in the case of

Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur Vs. Satyabhamabai

Bhimaji Dawkher and Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 627 and Chhabildas Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 784.

3.3It is therefore submitted that once the reservation is deemed to

have lapsed, the original landowners cannot insist that still their land be

acquired and they be paid the compensation. In such a situation, even

neither a writ petition would be maintainable at the instance of the

landowners nor a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to still

acquire the land and pay the compensation can be issued. This is

particularly so when the reservation has lapsed.

3.4It is further submitted by Ms. Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellant Corporation that even otherwise in

the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to

have directed the Corporation to acquire the land for the purpose for

which it was reserved and to pay the compensation to the original

landowners. It is submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciated

and/or considered the financial position of the Corporation and the

financial constraint faced by the Corporation, if such a huge amount of

12

compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013 is to be paid by

the Corporation. It is submitted that the entire budget of the Corporation

for land acquisition was only Rs.21 crores as against the compensation

amount of Rs.62.5 crores payable in the present case. It is submitted

that therefore it is practically impossible for the Corporation to pay such

a huge amount of compensation for the land which as such is unsuitable

and not useable by the Corporation.

3.5It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel on behalf of

the Corporation that the High Court has therefore not at all adverted to

the financial inability of the Corporation to acquire the land and the

unsuitability of the land for the public purpose for which it was reserved.

It is submitted that it was specifically pointed out that the land in question

is not at all suitable and/or usable for the purpose for which the same

has been acquired, namely parking, garden etc. It is submitted that it

was specifically pointed out that the subject land is flood affected

through which a rivulet named ‘Jayanti Nala’ passes, making it

unsuitable/unusable for the public purposes for which it was reserved. It

is submitted that therefore the original landowners cannot compel the

Corporation to acquire the land, which as such is unsuitable/unusable

and non-developed land. It is submitted that it was specifically pointed

out before the High Court that the reserved area is coming within High

Flood Line and every year for a period of fifteen days to one month, the

13

said area gets flooded during rainy season. It is submitted that it was

pointed out that unless and until a major development work is carried out

upon the said reserved land for making it suitable for the public purposes

as per reservation, the landowners cannot still say that the land must be

acquired, which otherwise is not suitable and/or usable. It is submitted

that if such a request of the original landowners is accepted, in that

case, every landowner, whose land is otherwise unsuitable and/or not

usable will see to it that with the connivance of the party in power and/or

the persons in the administration or management of the Corporation to

reserve the land for public purpose and thereafter compel the

Corporation to acquire the land, which otherwise is unsuitable and/or not

usable. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect has not at all been

considered by the High Court though it was specifically pointed out in the

counter filed on behalf of the Corporation.

3.6It is further submitted by Ms. Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the Corporation that the High Court has directed

the appellant to acquire the land in question for the purposes for which it

was reserved in view of the Resolution passed by the General Body. It

is submitted that the aforesaid finding is just contrary to the law laid

down by this Court in the case of Shrirampur Municipal Council,

Shrirampur (supra). It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision it is

specifically observed and held by this Court that by mere passing of a

14

resolution by the Planning Authority or sending a letter to the Collector or

even to the State Government cannot be treated as commencement of

the proceedings for the acquisition of the land under the 1966 Act and/or

1894 Act.

3.7Making the above submissions and relying upon the above

decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set

aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

4.Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri C.U. Singh, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – original

landowners.

4.1It is vehemently submitted by Shri Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the original landowners that the appellant

Corporation deserves no relief under Article 136 of the Constitution

because of its conduct in not following a consistent stand before the

High Court and this Court. It is submitted that the Corporation is barred

by the law of estoppel and the doctrine of election from changing its

stand from first agreeing to acquire property, then offering TDR in lieu of

compensation, and finally from refusing to comply with the Hon’ble High

Court’s judgment on incorrect grounds.

4.2It is submitted that in the present case various parts of the land in

question were reserved for the purposes of parking, playground, garden

and twelve meter wide road and extension of sewage treatment plant. It

15

is submitted that the reservation continued for more than ten years. It is

urged that for all these ten years, the landowners were deprived of

developing and/or using their land. It is contended that thereafter after

keeping the land in question under reservation for more than ten years

thereafter it is not open for the Corporation to say that it will not acquire

the land for paucity of the funds. It is submitted that when the land in

question was kept under reservation for more than ten years and the

land was not acquired, the respondents issued a purchase notice dated

02.01.2012 to the Corporation under Section 127 of the MRTP Act for

acquisition of the land. It is submitted that in fact, the General Body of

the Corporation thereafter passed a Resolution dated 18.02.2012

resolving that the land is required to be acquired and granting the

consent by making provision for payment of the compensation in the

budget of the Corporation. It is contended that thus it is clear that the

appellant Corporation possessed sufficient funds to acquire the land and

had a clear intention of acquiring it. It is submitted that even thereafter

the Municipal Commissioner issued a letter dated 22.04.2012 to the

officers of the State requesting initiation of acquisition proceedings under

the relevant statutes. Pursuant to this, the Special Land Acquisition

Officer issued a letter dated 28.10.2015 to the Municipal Commissioner

calling upon him to deposit an amount of Rs.77,64,12,000/- in the PLA

Account of the SLAO’s office. It is submitted that it is at this point that the

16

appellant Corporation decided to not acquire the land considering the

amount of money it was directed to pay as compensation. It is submitted

that even thereafter also and despite having agreed to acquire the land

in question, the Corporation issued a letter dated 17.03.2016 calling

upon the landowners to submit a proposal for grant of TDR in lieu of

monetary compensation. It is submitted that the landowners initially

rejected the Corporation’s proposal for TDR by letter dated 17.05.2016

since the TDR offered was not in accordance with the correct rates

prescribed by the concerned DCR that was then in force. It is submitted

that only thereafter and aggrieved by the gross inaction on the part of

the Corporation, the respondents - landowners were compelled to file

writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 4790 of 2018

praying for similar reliefs as the respondents had sought in the present

matter with respect to the part of the land, which was reserved for

playground. That the Hon’ble High Court allowed the said writ petition

vide order dated 06.08.2018. It is submitted that in the said order, the

High Court also took note of the Corporation’s stand that it needs the

respondents’ land, but it is unable to purchase it only due to its financial

constraints. It is submitted that by the said judgment, the High Court also

directed the Corporation to take steps for issuing a declaration under the

MRTP Act and to complete the entire process of acquisition. It is

submitted that thereafter since the Corporation failed to implement the

17

High Court’s aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.08.2018, the

respondents – landowners filed a contempt petition and the Corporation

had offered TDR in lieu of compensation, which the respondents had

accepted. It is urged that by the impugned judgment, the High Court has

granted similar reliefs, which were granted in Writ Petition No. 4790 of

2018 and has directed the Corporation to initiate the acquisition

proceedings.

4.3It is submitted that even before the High Court, the Corporation

filed a Civil Application No. 2461 of 2018, willing to offer TDR in lieu of

compensation to be paid for the acquisition of the reserved land. Thus, it

is not open for the Corporation to take a contrary stand and even oppose

the TDR in lieu of compensation for acquisition of the land under

reservation, which the landowners are ready to accept. It is contended

that the landowners are entitled to the TDR in lieu of compensation

amount as per the DCR.

4.4It is submitted by Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the landowners that as the Corporation has

changed its stand from time to time before the Hon’ble High Court as

well as before this Court by not agreeing to acquire the land in question

and not willing to offer TDR in lieu of compensation amount, the

Corporation cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Reliance

is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Mumbai

18

International Airport Private Limited Vs. Golden Chariot Airport &

Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 422 as well as Joint Action Committee of Air

Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) and Ors. Vs. Director

General of Civil Aviation and Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 435 and Karam

Kapahi and Ors. Vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Anr.,

(2010) 4 SCC 753.

4.5It is submitted that in the aforesaid decisions, this Hon’ble Court

had explained the common law doctrine of approbation and reprobation

as a facet of the law of estoppel. It is contended that therefore the

appellant Corporation is also bound by the same doctrine of approbation

and reprobation, which acts as an estoppel against its decision to deny

TDR to the respondents - landowners after having previously offered it

on its own accord.

4.6It is further submitted by Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the original landowners that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the reservation of the

land in question has lapsed. It is submitted that on lapsing of the

reservation, a notification was required to be issued by an order

publishing in the Official Gazette as per Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act.

That in the present case since that was not done, the reservation in

respect of landowners cannot be said to have lapsed. It is submitted

that therefore the Corporation cannot now take the stand of lapse before

19

this Hon’ble Court at this stage of proceedings, especially since it did not

take this stand before the High Court.

4.7It is further submitted by Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the landowners that even otherwise considering

the relevant provisions of the MRTP Act, more particularly, Section 22

read with Section 31(5), the Corporation is bound to make provision in

the Development Plan for parking, garden, which are public purposes. It

is submitted that it is the duty cast upon the Corporation to make

necessary provisions for public purposes in the Development Plan. It is

submitted that if the stand on behalf of the Corporation in the present

case is accepted, in that case, there shall not be any garden, parking

etc., which are public purposes and it can be said that the Corporation

has failed to fulfill its obligations under the MRTP Act. Reliance is placed

upon the decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai and Ors. Vs. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar and Ors.,

(2019) 14 SCC 411.

4.8It is further submitted by Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the landowners that in the present case, the

Corporation has already granted TDR to the present respondents in

accordance with Clause 11.2.4 of the Unified DCPR, 2020 for acquiring

the portion of the land reserved for the playground. It is submitted that

as per Clause 11.2.4(a), the TDR for a non-congested area is 1:2.

20

However, the quantum of TDR is reduced to 1:1.85 in case levelling of

land and construction/erection of a compound wall/fencing to the land

under surrender is not desirable considering the total area of reservation.

It is submitted that the respondents are unable to undertake such

construction/erection work in respect of their land. It is submitted that

therefore the Corporation offered TDR in the ratio of 1:1.85 instead of

1:2. It is submitted that in other words, the respondents are effectively

ready and willing to accept the TDR in lieu of compensation despite

suffering a higher cut. It is urged that the respondents are still ready to

accept the TDR in lieu of the compensation amount for the reserved land

to be acquired.

4.9Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present

appeals and confirm the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

6.The short question which is posed for the consideration of this

Court is:

Whether a writ of Mandamus can be issued by the High Court in

exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

directing the authority/Municipal Corporation to acquire the land

reserved for a particular purpose and to pay the compensation to

21

the original landowners despite the fact that the reservation is

deemed to have lapsed in view of the statutory provisions and that

the land which is directed to be acquired and for which the

compensation is directed to be paid to the original landowners is

unsuitable and unusable for the purposes for which it is reserved?

7.In the present case, the respondents herein – original landowners

filed a writ petition before the High Court and prayed for the following

reliefs:-

a.Rule be issued and records and proceedings be called

for;

b.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of

mandamus and/ or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction in the nature of writ of mandamus thereby

directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to forthwith

publish a final notification under sub section (2) and (4)

of the Sec. 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act read with Sec. 19 of

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act;

2013;

c.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of

mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction in the nature of writ of mandamus thereby

directing the Respondent No. 3 Corporation to

forthwith deposit the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.

77,64,12000/- with the Respondent No. 2 and 7 and

further the Respondent No. 2 and 7 may be directed to

forthwith release the said amount of compensation to

the Petitioners;

22

d.Such further and other order be made as this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice

and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.The writ petition and the aforesaid prayers were vehemently

opposed by the appellant – Corporation inter alia submitting (i) that the

Corporation is not in a position to pay the compensation and it is beyond

their budgetary provisions; (ii) that the reservation under the MRTP Act

has lapsed in view of Section 126 r/w Section 127 of the MRTP Act; and

(iii) that the land sought to be directed to be acquired and for which

compensation is to be paid is unsuitable and unusable for the purposes

for which the land has been reserved namely parking, garden etc.

However, by the impugned judgment and order and without adverting to

the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has

directed the Corporation to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the

Act of 2013 and to pay the compensation to the original landowners.

Virtually, the High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation to

acquire the land in question for the purposes for which the same was put

under reservation under the Development Plan.

8.1From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,

it appears that the High Court has issued a writ of Mandamus and has

directed the Corporation to acquire the land for the purposes for which it

was reserved under the Development Plan mainly on the ground that the

General Body of the Corporation had passed a Resolution to acquire the

23

land and by further observing that as the General Body of the

Corporation had passed a Resolution to acquire the land as the same is

required by the Corporation for public purposes namely parking, garden

etc. Therefore, and as observed hereinabove, the question which is

posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether the High Court was

justified in issuing the writ of Mandamus directing the Corporation to

acquire the land for the purposes for which it was reserved under the

Development Plan.

9.While considering the issue/issues involved, the scheme of the

MRTP Act, more particularly, with respect to the Development Plan is

required to be referred to and considered.

9.1Chapter III of the MRTP Act deals with Development Plan. As per

Section 21 of the Act as soon as may be after the commencement of the

Act, but not later than three years from such commencement, and

subject to the provisions of the Act, 1966, every Planning Authority shall

carry out a survey, prepare an existing land-use map and prepare a draft

Development plan for the area within its jurisdiction, in accordance with

the provisions of a Regional plan, where there is such a plan. As per

sub-section (2) of Section 21, every Planning Authority constituted shall

declare its intention to prepare a draft Development plan, prepare such

plan and publish a notice of such preparation in the Official Gazette and

in such other manner as may be prescribed and submit the draft

24

Development plan to the State Government for sanction. Therefore, it is

the duty cast upon the Planning Authority to prepare a draft

Development Plan; to issue a declaration of intention to prepare the

Development Plan and submit the same to the State Government for

sanction within the period specified or within the extended period as

provided under the Act, 1966. Section 22 of the Act, 1966 provides for

what should be contained in the Development plan. As per Section 22 of

the Act, 1966, in the Development Plan, there shall be provisions for

reservation for public purposes, which include provisions for proposals

for designation of the land for various public purposes. Section 22 reads

as under:-

“22. A Development plan shall generally indicate the

manner in which the use of land in the area of a Planning

Authority shall be regulated, and also indicate the manner

in which the development of land therein shall be carried

out. In particular, it shall provide so far as may be

necessary for all or any of the following matters, that is to

say,—

(a) proposals for allocating the use of land for

purposes, such as residential, industrial, commercial,

agricultural, recreational ;

(b) proposals for designation of land for public

purpose, such as schools, colleges and other educational

institutions, medical and public health institutions,

markets, social welfare and cultural institutions, theatres

and places for public entertainment, or public assembly,

museums, art galleries, religious buildings and

government and other public buildings as may from time

to time be approved by the State Government ;

25

(c) proposals for designation of areas for open

spaces, playgrounds, stadia, zoological gardens, green

belts, nature reserves, sanctuaries and dairies ;

(d) transport and communications, such as roads,

high-ways, park-ways, railways, water-ways, canals and

air ports, including their extension and development ;

(e) water supply, drainage, sewerage, sewage

disposal, other public utilities, amenities and services

including electricity and gas ;

(f) reservation of land for community facilities and

services ;

(g) proposals for designation of sites for service

industries, industrial estates and any other development

on an extensive scale ;

(h) preservation, conservation and development of

areas of natural scenary and landscape ;

(i) preservation of features, structures or places of

historical, natural, architectural and scientific interest and

educational value and of heritage buildings and heritage

precincts ;

(j) proposals for flood control and prevention of river

pollution ;

(k) proposals of the Central Government, a State

Government, Planning Authority or public utility

undertaking or any other authority established by law for

designation of land as subject to acquisition for public

purpose or as specified in a Development plan, having

regard to the provisions of section 14 or for development

or for securing use of the land in the manner provided by

or under this Act ;

(l) the filling up or reclamation of low lying, swampy

or unhealthy areas or levelling up of land ;

(m) provisions for permission to be granted for

controlling and regulating the use and development of

26

land within the jurisdiction of a local authority including

imposition of fees, charges and premium, at such rate as

may be fixed by the State Government or the planning

Authority, from time to time, for grant of an additional

Floor Space Index or for the special permissions or for the

use of discretionary powers under the relevant

Development Control Regulations, and also for imposition

of conditions and restrictions in regard to the open space

to be maintained about buildings, the percentage of

building area for a plot, the location, number, size, height,

number of storeys and character of buildings and density

of population allowed in a specified area, the use and

purposes to which buildings or specified areas of land

may or may not be appropriated, the sub-division of plots,

the discontinuance of objectionable users of land in any

area in reasonable periods, parking space and loading

and unloading space for any building and the sizes of

projections and advertisement signs and boardings and

other matters as may be considered necessary for

carrying out the objects of this Act.”

9.2Therefore, while preparing the draft Development

Plan/Development Plan, the Corporation has to make provisions for

various public purposes enumerated under Section 22 of the Act, 1966.

It is to be noted that while preparing a draft Development

Plan/Development Plan, every Planning Authority shall have to carry out

a survey and prepare an existing land-use map. Thereafter, the

Planning Authority and the State Government are required to follow the

procedure as mandated under the Act, 1966. While preparing the

Development Plan, the Planning Authority may also designate (popularly

known as ‘keep the land under reservation’) any land for purposes

specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of the Section 22. Sub-section (5) of

27

Section 31 provides that if a Development Plan contains any proposal for

the designation of any land for a purpose specified in clauses (b) and (c)

of section 22, and if such land does not vest in the Planning Authority,

the State Government shall not include that purpose in the Development

Plan, unless it is satisfied that the Planning Authority will be able to

acquire such land by private agreement or compulsory acquisition not

later than ten years from the date on which the Development plan comes

into operation.

9.3Therefore, and as observed hereinabove while preparing a draft

Development Plan, the Planning Authority and/or its officer(s) appointed

shall have to carry out the survey and prepare an existing land-use map.

Therefore, while preparing a Development Plan and while designating a

particular land and/or reserving a particular land for public purposes

mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 22, the Planning Authority

has to bear in mind and/or take into consideration whether the particular

land, which is earmarked and/or reserved and/or designated for a public

purpose, which will have to be acquired on payment of compensation is

suitable and/or useable or not for the purposes for which it is reserved

for public purposes. It should not lead to a situation where for some

oblique reasons, the Planning Authority keeps a particular land under

reservation and thereafter acquires it and pays the compensation for the

land which is not useable and/or suitable to be used for a particular

28

purpose merely because the same is under reservation. If the same is

permitted, it will amount to a fraud and colourable exercise of power as

then the Authority will pay compensation with respect to land which

otherwise is not usable and/or suitable. Therefore, while preparing the

Development Plan and putting a particular private land under reservation

and/or while designating the private land for a particular public purpose

under the Development Plan, a duty is cast upon the Planning Authority

to make a survey and come to a specific opinion by taking into

consideration all relevant facts that the land which is kept under

reservation and which will have to be acquired on payment of

compensation is suitable and/or usable for the purpose for which it is to

be reserved.

9.4In the present case, even according to the Corporation, the land in

question is not at all suitable and even usable for the purposes for which

it is reserved, i.e., for public purposes like parking, garden etc., as the

said land is a flood affected and a rivulet named ‘Jayanti Nala’ passes

through the said area under reservation. It was also the case on behalf

of the Corporation before the High Court and even before this Court that

the reserved area is coming within High Flood Line and every year for a

period of fifteen days to one month, the said area gets flooded during

rainy season and that it will be necessary to carry out the required

development work at a huge cost upon the said reserved land for making

29

it suitable for public purposes as per reservation. It was/is the specific

case on behalf of the Corporation that if the said development is not

done, the land under reservation cannot be able to be utilized for the

purposes for which it is reserved. If that be so, we fail to understand

what the reason was for the Planning Authority to designate such a land

for a public purpose and/or to reserve the land in question in the

Development Plan for a public purpose and thereafter to acquire and pay

the compensation if the said land was not at all suitable and/or usable.

9.5As observed hereinabove, at the time of preparing the

Development Plan and keeping a particular land reserved for a particular

public purpose, an important duty is cast upon the Planning Authority to

first satisfy that the land reserved which thereafter has to be acquired on

payment of compensation is very much suitable and usable for that

public purpose. In the instant case, how the area, which is a flood

affected area and through which a rivulet named ‘Jayanti Nala’ passes

can be kept under reservation for a particular public purpose and can be

used for public purposes like parking and/or for widening of the road

etc.? Therefore, while preparing the Development Plan and reserving

and/or designating a particular land for a particular public purpose, great

care and caution is to be exercised by the Planning Authority. As per

Section 125 of the Act, any land required, reserved or designated in a

Development plan or Town Planning Scheme for a public purpose or

30

purposes including plans for any area of comprehensive development or

for any new town shall be deemed to be land needed for a public

purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence,

all the parameters concerning the suitability of the land for the particular

public purpose for which the land is to be reserved and acquired for

utilization must be borne in mind as a factor of paramount importance.

10.The next relevant provisions with which we are concerned would

be Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966. The said provisions

read as under:-

“126. Acquisition of land required for public

purposes specified in plans.-(1) Where 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 Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, 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

31

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

Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the case may

be, shall vest absolutely free from all

encumbrances in the 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 3[if the State Government (except in cases

falling under section 49 4[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 6 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, 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

section 6, the Collector shall proceed to take order for the

acquisition of the land under the said Act; and the

32

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 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) 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 (Amendment) Act, 1993, the

33

State Government may make a fresh declaration for

acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

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.

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 comes into force 2[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.”

10.1Section 126 of the MRTP Act provides that where 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 MRTP Act at any

34

time, the Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may

be, any Appropriate Authority has to acquire the land as provided under

Sections 126(1)(a), (b) or (c) by making an application to the State

Government for acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (now it would be the Act of 2013). On receipt of such application

by the Planning Authority/Development Authority to the State

Government for acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, the procedure as contemplated and required under Sections

126(2) to 126(4) shall have to be followed. Section 127 of the MRTP Act

further provides that if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any

purpose specified in any plan under MRTP Act is not acquired by

agreement or otherwise within ten years from the date on which a final

Regional Plan, or final Development Plan 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 (ten years), the owner or any

person interested in the land may serve a notice to the Planning

Authority, the Development Authority or, as the case may be, the

Appropriate Authority to purchase the land reserved. If within twelve

months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not

acquired or no steps 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

35

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. Sub-section (2) of

Section 127 further provides that on lapsing of the 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.

10.2What can be said to be taking “steps” as mentioned in Section 127

of the MRTP Act has been extensively dealt with and considered by this

Court in the case of Girnar Traders (supra), Shrirampur Municipal

Council, Shrirampur (supra) and Chhabildas (supra).

10.3In the case of Girnar Traders (supra), this Court had occasion to

consider the entire scheme of Sections 126 and 127. Insofar as Section

127 is concerned, this Court has observed and held in paragraphs 31

and 32 as under:-

“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

36

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 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.”

10.4On emphasizing the word “steps” used in Section 127 of the

MRTP Act, it is observed and held in paragraphs 56 and 57 as under:-

“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

37

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 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.”

10.5In Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur (supra), it was

the case on behalf of the Planning Authority that after the purchase

notice as per Section 127(1) is served and the Planning Authority and/or

the Corporation has passed a resolution to acquire the land and it is

communicated to the State Government, it can be said to be taking

“steps” and therefore in such a situation the reservation cannot be said

to have lapsed. The aforesaid position came to be negated by this Court

38

in the aforesaid decision after considering the judgment of this Court in

the case of Girnar Traders (supra). It is specifically observed and held

that the expression “no steps as aforesaid” used in Section 127 of the

Act, 1966 has to be read in the context of the provisions of the Act of

1894 and now the Act of 2013 and a mere passing of a Resolution by

the Planning Authority or sending a letter to the Collector or even to the

State Government cannot be treated as commencement of the

proceedings for the acquisition of the land under the 1966 Act and/or

1894 Act or now the Act of 2013. It is observed and held that publication

of a declaration under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1894 can be said to be

conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and

imply taking active steps for the acquisition of the particular piece of

land. In paragraphs 42 and 43 of the said judgment, it is observed and

held as under:-

“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

39

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 compensation. That

would tantamount to depriving the citizens of their

property without the sanction of law and would result in

violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”

10.6Subsequently, in the case of Chhabildas (supra), it has been

observed and held by this Court after considering the decisions of this

Court in the cases of Girnar Traders (supra) and Shrirampur

Municipal Council, Shrirampur (supra) that if a period of ten 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

40

within a period of one year from the date of service of such notice, or

else the land acquisition proceedings would lapse.

11.Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid three

decisions, if the land reserved under the draft Development

Plan/Development Plan is not acquired within a period of ten years form

the date of final Development Plan and thereafter after expiry of ten

years, the landowners serve a purchase notice and thereafter within a

period of one year, no steps are taken to acquire the land, the

reservation/allocation is deemed to have lapsed and the land stand

released from such reservation/allocation. As held above, declaration

under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 can be said to be taking steps as

contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. After the enactment

of the Act of 2013, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 is

now to be read and/or is substituted by declaration under Section 19 of

the Act of 2013. Therefore, if within a period of one year from the date of

receipt of purchase notice as per Section 127, a declaration under

Section 19 of the Act, 2013 is not issued and the land is not acquired,

the reservation/allocation under the Development Plan is deemed to

have lapsed and the land is released from such reservation/allocation.

11.1Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions

to the present case, the first Development Plan under which the original

writ petitioners’ land was reserved for public purposes was in the year

41

1976. Thereafter the second amended Development Plan was

published on 18.12.1999 and came to be implemented from 01.02.2000,

under which also the land of the original writ petitioners was reserved for

public purposes. But the same had not been acquired for ten years

despite the respondents – original writ petitioners having issued a

purchase notice dated 02.01.2012 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act

for acquisition of the reserved area. A mere Resolution being passed by

the General Body of the Corporation to acquire the land and sending a

letter to the Collector to acquire the land, without any further steps being

taken under the Land Acquisition Act, namely no declaration under

section 6 thereof being issued within a period of one year from the

receipt of the said purchase notice, would result in the reservation as

deemed to have lapsed.

12.In the present case, the High Court has issued a writ of Mandamus

directing the Corporation to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the

Act of 2013 mainly on the ground that the General Body of the

Corporation had passed a Resolution dated 18.02.2012 resolving that

the land in question is required to be acquired and the same is needed

for the purpose for which it has been reserved. However, in our view,

mere passing of a Resolution and/or making a budgetary provision for

payment of the compensation in the budget cannot be said to be taking

steps as contemplated under section 127 of the MRTP Act.

42

Therefore, once the reservation of land under the Development

Plan is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law and it is released

from reservation, no writ of Mandamus could have been issued by the

High Court directing the Corporation to still acquire the land and to issue

a declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 (as in the meantime,

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed and Act of 2013 has

been enacted). Once by operation of law, the reservation is deemed to

have lapsed, it is lapsed for all purposes and for all times to come.

13.Now, so far as the observation made by the High Court that after

the reservation is deemed to have lapsed, it has not been notified in the

Official Gazette as required under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act is

concerned, we observe that notification in the Official Gazette is only a

consequential act and it has nothing to do with the actual lapsing of

reservation by operation of law as the reservation is deemed to have

lapsed under Section 127(1). Thereafter issuance of the notification of

lapse of the reservation of land is only a procedural act and non-

issuance of such a notification in the Official Gazette with respect to

lapse of the reservation, allocation or designation would not affect the

lapse of the reservation under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act.

14.Therefore, as such once the reservation with respect to the land in

question was deemed to have lapsed as observed hereinabove, no

further writ of mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to

43

acquire the land and thereafter pay the compensation to the landowners,

as on the lapse of the reservation, the land in question is free from

reservation and the landowners can use it as if there is no reservation,

however, subject to provisions of the MRTP Act.

15.Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

High Court had erred and/or the High Court was not justified in directing

the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land in question and to issue a

declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 and to pay

compensation under the Act of 2013. It is to be noted that right from the

very beginning it was stated in the counter before the High Court that the

land in question was not suitable and/or usable for the purposes for

which it has been reserved. It was specifically pointed out that the

subject land is flood affected through which a rivulet named ‘Jayanti

Nala’ passes, making it unsuitable for the public purposes for which it

was reserved. It was also specifically pointed out that unless and until

the substantial development is carried out, the land in question is not

usable at all. It was also specifically pointed out that the reserved area

is coming within High Flood Line and every year for a period of fifteen

days to one month, the said area gets flooded during rainy season. In

that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have directed the

Corporation to still acquire the land and pay the compensation to the

original landowners though the land in question is unsuitable and

44

unusable for the public purposes for which it has been reserved. As

observed hereinabove, as such at the time when the planning was made

and the land in question was put under reservation for public purposes, a

duty was cast upon the Planning Officer to consider whether the land,

which will have to be acquired and for which the compensation is to be

paid is really suitable and/or usable for the public purposes for which it is

reserved. Otherwise, every landowner will see to it that though his land

is not suitable and/or not very valuable, is put under reservation and the

same is acquired by the Corporation and/or the Planning Authority and

thereafter he is paid the compensation. No Corporation and/or the

Planning Authority and/or the Appropriate Authority can be compelled to

acquire the land which according to the Corporation/Planning Authority is

not suitable and/or usable for the purposes for which it is reserved. Any

other interpretation would lead to colourable and fraudulent exercise of

power and cause financial burden on the public exchequer.

16.At this stage, it is required to be noted that in fact there was a valid

reason for the Corporation not to go ahead with the acquisition. Under

the Act of 2013, the Corporation was required to pay a huge sum of Rs.

77,65,12,000/- by way of compensation under the Act of 2013.

According to the Corporation, when the entire annual budget for

acquisition was Rs.21 crores, it was beyond their financial position

and/or budgetary provision to pay such a huge compensation, that too,

45

for the land which is not suitable and/or useable for the purposes for

which it has been reserved. It may be true that under the MRTP Act, in

the Development Plan, the Planning Authority and/or the Appropriate

Authority has to make the provisions for the public purposes mentioned

in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 22 and sub-section (5) of Section 31 of

the MRTP Act and that is also desired for an appropriate planning of a

city and therefore the financial constraint cannot be the sole

consideration to acquire the land for the purposes for which it has been

reserved namely public purposes. However, at the same time, when

such a huge amount of compensation is to be paid and there would be a

heavy financial burden, which as such is beyond the financial capacity of

the Corporation, such a financial constraint can be said to be one of the

relevant considerations, though not the sole consideration before

embarking upon reservation of a particular extent of land for

development. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of this

case, when land is found to be unsuitable and unusable for the purposes

for which it has been reserved, Corporation cannot be compelled to pay

a huge compensation for such a useless and unsuitable land.

17.Now, the submission on behalf of the original landowners that if the

Corporation is not in a position to pay the compensation, in that case,

they are ready to accept the TDR in lieu of the amount of compensation

shall be considered. At one point of time, the aforesaid proposal was

46

under consideration by the Corporation and the Corporation even moved

a Civil Application before the High Court to direct the landowners to

accept the TDR. Therefore, on the principle of approbate and reprobate,

it is contended by the landowners that the Corporation cannot now be

permitted to deny TDR to the original landowners, we observe that first

of all, it is required to be noted that the said principle of approbate and

reprobate would be equally appliable to the landowners also. Before the

High Court, the original landowners specifically filed the affidavits dated

01.08.2018 and 07.08.2018, as observed and noted by the High Court in

the impugned judgment and order in paragraph 5 that they do not wish

to avail of TDR and their only prayer before the High Court was to

acquire the land and to pay them the compensation. Therefore, now it is

not open for the respondents -original landowners to pray for the TDR in

respect of the land in question.

17.1Even otherwise, a landowner is entitled to TDR in lieu of

compensation with respect to the land reserved provided the land to be

acquired is suitable and/or usable by the Corporation. Once it is found

that the land is not usable and/or suitable for the purposes for which it

has been reserved, the Corporation cannot still be compelled and

directed to acquire the land and grant TDR in lieu of amount of

compensation. Even as per Clause 11.2.2 of the Unified Development

Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (UDCPR, 2020) for

47

Maharashtra State under which the TDR is claimed, the compensation in

terms of TDR shall be permissible for:-

“xxxxxxxxxxxx

ii) lands under any deemed reservations according to any

regulations prepared as per the provisions of Maharashtra

Regional & Town Planning Act,1966;

xxxxxxxxxxxx

v) development or construction of the amenity on the

reserved or deemed reserved land;

xxxxxxxxxxxx”

Therefore, it can be argued that there cannot be any TDR in lieu of

compensation to be paid for the reserved land which reservation is

deemed to have lapsed as in the instant case.

17.2Even Clause 11.2.3 of the above Regulations states that it shall

not be permissible to grant TDR for existing nallah, river, natural stream,

natural pond, tank, water bodies etc. and reservations which are not

developable under the provisions of UDCPR, 2020.

Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the prayer of the

respondents to grant them TDR deserves rejection and is hereby

rejected.

18.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court directing the appellant Corporation to issue a declaration

under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 and consequently to acquire the

48

land in question and to pay the compensation to the respondents –

original landowners as per the provisions of Act of 2013 is hereby

quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original Writ Petition (Writ

Petition No.5310 of 2018) before the High Court filed on behalf of the

original landowners stand dismissed.

Present appeal is allowed accordingly. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.511 of 2022

19.In view of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Civil

Appeal No.510 of 2022, the Civil Appeal No. 511 of 2022 stands partly

allowed to the extent of declaring that reservation of the land for the

public purposes for which it was reserved is deemed to have lapsed.

No costs.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

FEBRUARY 14, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

49