11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.13965 OF 2024

1. Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased)

2. Zehra Yakub Contractor (Deceased)

Both through their legal heirs

2.1. Mazahir Alias Al Azhar Yakub

Contractor Age: 67 years,

Occupation: Business

2.2. Habib Yakub Contractor

Age: 51 years, Occupation: Business

2.3. Nasreen Yakub Contractor

Age-57 years, Occupation-Business

All 3 having registered address

at Sr. No. 20, Plot No. 15, Soeb Villa,

D. T. Sahani Road,

Lonavala, District-Pune, 410401

2.4. Duriya Shabbir Presswala

Age-65 years, Occupation - Business,

having Registered Address-11/1101,

Hill View Apartment, Belvedre

Hill Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400 010.

3. Mazahir Alias Al Azhar Yakub Contractor

Kartikeya 1 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

Age: 67 years, Occupation: Business

4. Hasina Al Azhar Yakub Contractor

Age: 65, Occupation: Housewife

Both having Registered Address - Sr. No. 20,

Plot No. 15, Soeb Villa, D. T. Sahani Road,

Lonavala, District - Pune 410401 ….Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra

Through its Urban Development

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

2. Director of Town Planning,

State of Maharashtra Office

at the Commissioner of Pune, Pune

3. Lonavala Municipal Council,

Through its Chief Officer,

Lonavala Tal Maval, District: Pune ….Respondents

----

➢Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w Mr. Irfan Unwala i/b. Ms.

Shaheen S. Kapadia, Advocate for the Petitioners.

➢Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, a/w Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP,

for the Respondent-State.

➢Ms. Shakuntala Wadekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

----

Kartikeya 2 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 9

th

FEBRUARY, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 17

th

FEBRUARY, 2026

Judgment :- (Per :- Abhay J. Mantri, J.) :-

1. By order dated 10

th

March, 2025, this Writ Petition is

‘Admitted’.

2. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Advocates for

the respective parties.

3. The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (b) and (c),

as under :

“(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate

writ, order, and or direction to declare that the reservation, designation or

allotment provided under the development plan revised development plan

of the Respondent No. 3 in respect of property lying, being and situated at

Lonavala within Registration Sub-District of Maval, Dist: Pune and within

the local limits of Lonavala Municipal Council in its ward “A” at

Bhangarwadi and known as Nangargaon in the revenue record bearing part

of Survey No. 55 admeasuring 88.29 ares within the jurisdiction of

Lonavala Municipal Council is lapsed and said reserved land is available

to the Petitioners for the purpose of development or otherwise, as is

permissible;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate

writ, order, and or direction to declare that the said reserved land in respect

of property lying, being and situated at Lonavala within Registration Sub-

District of Maval, Dist: Pune and within the local limits of Lonavala

Municipal Council in its ward “A” at Bhangarwadi and known as

Kartikeya 3 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

Nangargaon in the revenue record bearing part of Survey No. 55

admeasuring 88.29 ares within the jurisdiction of Lonavala Municipal

Council has been de-reserved under the provisions of Maharashtra

Regional Town Planning Act as per the purchase notice dated 02.08.2021

for want of valid steps by Lonavala Municipal Council”

4. The above prayer clauses indicate that the Petitioners have

invoked the deeming fiction of lapsing of reservation under Section

127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

(hereinafter referred to as “

the MRTP Act”), since the Respondents

have taken no steps for the acquisition of the land in question.

5. The material facts, dates, and sequence of events

necessary to determine the controversy between the parties are as

follows:

(a) Initially, Shri Narayan Damodar Bhonde and five others

were the owners of the property bearing part of Survey No. 55,

admeasuring 88.29 R, situated at Nangargaon, within the local limits

of the Lonavala Municipal Council (for short, “Council”), Ward ‘A’,

Bhangarwadi (for short, “the land”). Who, by registered Sale Deed

No. 145, dated 4

th

March, 1991, sold the land to the Petitioners.

Pursuant to the said sale deed, the Petitioners claim ownership of the

land.

Kartikeya 4 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

(b) The Respondent No. 1-State sanctioned and published the

Development Plan (for short, "the DP Plan”) vide Government

Resolution No. TPS/1876/9/4D, dated 28

th

February, 1978, and the

same came into force on 1

st

March, 1978.

(c) Respondent No. 3- Council failed to take steps for the

acquisition or development of the land up to 1

st

October, 1998.

(d) On 2

nd

October, 1998, the Petitioners issued a purchase

notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act to Respondent No. 3,

which was neither complied with nor any steps were taken to

acquire or develop the land.

(e) Thereafter, the said DP Plan was partially revised and

sanctioned on 29

th

June, 2005. The partially revised DP Plan came

into force on 27

th

August 2005.

(f) Again, on 18

th

August, 2006, Respondent No. 3

sanctioned and published the remaining part of the DP Plan. The

Kartikeya 5 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

said DP Plan came into force on 1

st

November, 2006.

(g) Until 31

st

October, 2016, i.e. over a period of 10 years,

Respondent No. 3 had neither proceeded with the acquisition of the

land nor carried out any development of the land for the purpose for

which it was reserved.

(h) Since no land was acquired, on 2

nd

August, 2021, the

Petitioners issued a second purchase notice under Section 127 of the

MRTP Act to Respondent No. 3-Council.

(i) Despite receipt of the said notice, Respondent No. 3 failed

to comply with the notice, neither acquired nor developed the said

land pursuant thereto until 1

st

August, 2023.

(j) It is evident from the record that Respondent No. 3-

Council, i.e. the planning authority, did not take any steps to acquire

or develop the land since 1978. Consequently, the Petitioners filed

this Writ Petition on 23

rd

September, 2024.

Kartikeya 6 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

6. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and upon

examining the record, including the affidavit-in-reply filed by

Respondent No. 3 and the judgments relied upon by the Petitioners,

it appears that the controversy between the Petitioners and the

Council falls in a narrow compass, i.e. the Petitioners have issued a

purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which deals

with lapsing of reservations of the land. Thus, we would like to

reproduce the relevant provision of the MRTP Act.

7. For context, Chapter VII of the MRTP Act deals with

“

Land Acquisition”.

Section 125 provides for the “compulsory

acquisition of land needed for the purposes of the Regional Plan,

Development Plan, or Town Planning Scheme

”.

Section 126 deals

with the “

acquisition of land required for public purposes specified

in such plans

”.

Section 127, however, deals with the “lapsing of

reservations

” and prescribes the procedure for issuance of a

purchase notice in that regard. Since Section 127 is relevant for

deciding the issue that arises in the present Writ Petition, the same is

reproduced hereunder:

Kartikeya 7 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

“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 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, along with 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 twenty-four 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.”

8. A plain reading of Section 127 of the MRTP Act indicates

that

after expiry of

ten years from the date of reservation, when no

steps have been taken to acquire the land, the owner or interested

person gets the right to issue a purchase notice under Section 127 of

the MRTP Act. The reservation cannot lapse automatically after ten

years if a purchase notice is not issued. The reservation lapses only

if, after service of such notice, the Planning Authority fails to take

steps towards acquisition of the land within the twenty-four months

prescribed under the statute. Thus, the right contemplated under

Kartikeya 8 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

Section 127 arises upon issuance of the purchase notice after ten

years and not merely by efflux of time.

9. The learned Advocate for the Council has only raised the

grievance that the Petitioners did not submit the documents as

required under Section 127 of the MRTP Act; in particular, the

purchase notice issued by the Petitioners was allegedly incomplete,

as no documents were furnished to substantiate their title to the land.

10. Secondly, it is contended that the notice did not contain a

detailed description of the property, nor did it enclose the

measurement sheet of the land in question to indicate the extent of

the land affected by the DP reservation. In view of the above, it is

argued that the Petitioners are not entitled to relief under Section

127 of the MRTP Act, and, therefore, it is urged that the Writ

Petition be dismissed.

11.

Per contra, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners

submits that, since 1978, the Petitioners’ land has been shown in the

DP Plan as reserved for “

Housing for dishoused”, i.e., ‘homes for

Kartikeya 9 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

homeless people’. The State/planning authorities neither acquired

the land nor took any steps despite receipt of the purchase notice.

Therefore, in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation

is deemed to have lapsed. It is further canvassed that the planning

authority cannot raise a grievance that the Purchase Notice was

defective, on the ground that the title documents did not accompany

it or that it did not provide a detailed description of the property,

when it failed to take steps to acquire the property within the

prescribed period, as contemplated by the MRTP Act. Moreover, the

omission of details regarding the second revised DP Plan does not

affect the Petitioners’ claim, as Respondent No. 3 does not dispute

the publication of the second revised sanctioned DP Plan, under

which a portion of Survey No. 55 was reserved. On these grounds,

the Petitioners contend that they are entitled to the reliefs as prayed

for.

12. To buttress these submissions, the learned Advocate for

the Petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i)Jayantilal Himmatlal Oswal V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Writ

Petition No.205 of 2021), Decision dated 09.04.2021

Kartikeya 10 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

(ii)Shripad @ Pramod N. Bhonde & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra &

Ors., (Writ Petition No.12309 of 2022), Decision dated 02.03.2023;

(iii)Salim Abdul Subhan Sahikh V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Writ

Petition No.4515 of 2022);

(iv)Dr. Dattatray Baburao Kungulwar & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra

& Anr. (Writ Petition No.6562 of 2024); and

(v)Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar & Anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra &

Ors. (Writ Petition No.15701 of 2022)

13. In view of the afore-cited judgments, he propounded that

these decisions fully cover the issue in the case at hand, and as such,

urges that the Petition be allowed.

14. Before dealing with the rival submissions, it would be

appropriate to set out the undisputed facts of the case as follows.

(a) In 1978, Respondent No. 3- Council prepared and

published the Development Plan, which was sanctioned by

Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of establishing “

Housing for

dishoused

,” and came into force on 1

st

March 1978. It is not in

dispute that the DP Plan was subsequently revised on 29

th

June 2005

and on 18

th

August 2006, with the revised plans coming into force

on 27

th

August 2005 and 1

st

November 2006, respectively.

Kartikeya 11 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

(b) It is not in dispute that a certain portion of ‘the land’ is

reserved under the 1978 DP Plan, and the revised DP Plan of 2005–

06. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.3, the planning

authority, does not dispute the receipt of the purchase notice under

Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which was served by the Petitioner

on it on 2

nd

August 2021, i.e., after the lapse of ten years from the

sanction and publication of the second revised DP Plan.

15. In Jayantilal Himmatlal Oswal (supra), the Petitioners therein

had sought a similar relief in respect of the same DP plans as

claimed in the case at hand, wherein this Court examined the DP

Plan of 1978 as well as the revised DP Plan of 2005 and observed

that, “

over a period of 40 years (from 1978 to 2018), Respondent

No. 3-Council failed to acquire the land that had been reserved

under the said DP plans. Therefore, upon consideration of the

purchase notice, the Court held that Respondent No. 3 did not take

any steps to acquire or develop the land within two years from the

receipt of the notice, resulting in the lapse of the reservation.

”

Kartikeya 12 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

16. In the present case, Respondent No. 3 does not dispute the

receipt of the purchase notice dated 2

nd

August 2021, and two years

have elapsed on 1st August 2023. Respondent No. 3 has failed to

take any steps to acquire or develop the land within the prescribed

period; as such, the observations made in the afore-cited decision

are squarely applicable to the case at hand.

17. The planning authority, Respondent No. 3, has only raised

the grievance that a purchase notice was defective in the absence of

documents demonstrating title or interest in the land or the notice

did not contain a detailed description of the property, nor did it

produce the measurement sheet of the land in question to indicate

the extent of the land affected by the DP reservation. According to

us, the submission of documents showing title or interest in the land,

along with the Purchase Notice to the concerned Authority as per

section 127(1), is intended to facilitate clear transfer of title from the

owner or the person interested in the land upon payment of the

consideration to the claimant within the stipulated period of 24

months.

Kartikeya 13 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

18. In our view, after the expiry of the stipulated period of

twenty-four months under Section 127 (1) upon service of a

purchase notice, if the land is not acquired, or no steps as

contemplated under the said Section are commenced for its

acquisition, thereupon, the land is deemed to be released from such

reservation, allotment or designation; in such circumstances, the

concerned Authority cannot raise a defence that the purchase notice

was defective, as it was not accompanied by the documents showing

title or interest in the said land.

19. In other words, the concerned Authority cannot raise a

defence of a defective purchase notice for want of a document

showing title or interest in the said land, when it has failed to take

steps to acquire the land within the stipulated period as

contemplated by the provisions of the MRTP Act. Such documents

are not required for the release of the property from reservation,

allotment, or designation, when the land is not acquired, or no steps

are commenced for its acquisition, reservation, or allotment, as

provided in the MRTP Act, on account of the lapsing of the

reservation.

Kartikeya 14 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

20. Besides, upon perusal of the purchase notice under

Section 127 of the MRTP Act, it is evident from Paragraphs 2 and 5

of the notice that the Petitioners have categorically provided a

detailed description of the land in question. Furthermore, the

Petitioners have referred to the 1978 DP reservation plan. Apart

from the above, it is to be noted that the Respondent No. 3 –

Council by communication dated 25.11.2021 (page 100) admitted

the receipt of the Purchase Notice dated 02.08.2021 on the same

date. By the said communication, the Respondent No. 3- Council

informed the Petitioners regarding the implementation of the revised

DP plan of 2005-2006 and asked them to produce the documents

accordingly. The said facts themselves indicate that the Respondent

No. 3 does not dispute the receipt of notice even after ten years of

implementation of the revised DP plan of 2005-06. Consequently,

we find no merit in the objection/grievance raised by the learned

Advocate for Respondent No.3, who contended that the Petitioners

failed to provide the details of the land, or that the Purchase Notice

did not disclose for which reservation number the Petitioners had

issued the Purchase Notice.

Kartikeya 15 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

21. Thus, it emerges that Respondent No. 3, having failed to

take any steps to acquire the property within the period prescribed

under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the documents as sought by it

are not required for the release of the land from reservation,

allotment, or designation.

22. In terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the owner or

person interested in the land is entitled to claim that the reservation

shall be deemed to have lapsed where the Authority has failed to

initiate action to acquire the land within the prescribed period. It is

also to be noted that the Petitioners have produced a photostat copy

of the registered Sale Deed dated 4

th

March, 1991 (page Nos. 26 to

57), which clearly demonstrates that, by virtue of the said Sale

Deed, they acquired title and interest in the land in question.

23. It is pertinent to note that in Nirmiti Developers through its

Partners & Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC

438, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after dealing with Sections 49,

126, and 127 of the MRTP Act, considering the mandate in Girnar

Traders V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555 in

Kartikeya 16 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

Paragraphs 28 to 32, and the position of law in various judgments of

the Hon’ble Apex Court, has laid down the principles underlying

Section 127 of the MRTP Act in para 34, 47 and 50. We would like

to reproduce para 28 to 32 and 34, 47 and 50 as under :

“28. In Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (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 the 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 the acquisition

of the land without there being any application moved by

the planning/local authority under clause (c) of Section

126(1)

.”

Kartikeya 17 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

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. The 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 the 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

.”

Kartikeya 18 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

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

of Greater Bombay v. Dr Hakimwadi Tenants' Assn., 1988 Supp

SCC 55, and was of the 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 the acquisition of the owner's property

. The

intent

and purpose of the provisions of Sections 126 and 127

have 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

the dereservation of the land. Not only that, it gives a further

time for either to acquire the land or to take steps for the

acquisition of the land within a period of six months from

the date of service of notice by the landowner for

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 in

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

Kartikeya 19 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

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 a mandate is given in a

section requiring compliance within a particular period, strict

compliance is required therewith, as the 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 a

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 the acquisition of the same

.

56. The underlying principle 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 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 steps taken under the section within the time stipulated

should be towards the acquisition of land. It is a step of

acquisition of land and not a step for the 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 the 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 the

acquisition of the land. On the construction of Section 126,

which provides for the acquisition of land under the MRTP

Act, it is apparent that the steps for the acquisition of the

land would be the 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

Kartikeya 20 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

Government for the acquisition of the land would not be a

step for the 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 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 61)

“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 the 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 in 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).

”

24. Considering the law laid down in

Girnar Traders (supra)

and other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Paragraphs 34, 47 and 50 concludes as follows :

Kartikeya 21 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

“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 (now two

years as amended) from the date of service of such notice, or else

the land acquisition proceedings would lapse.”

“

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

are either to utilise the land for the purpose for which it is reserved

in the timeline given or to let the owner utilise 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 the

acquisition of the said land within the prescribed period. Indisputably, in

the present case, the respondents have not taken any steps to issue a

notification after receipt of the notice.”

“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

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 (now 2 years as amended) 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.

25. We have also perused the judgments relied upon by the

petitioners. It is a trite law that, pursuant to a notice under Section

127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation would lapse upon failure to

take effective steps to acquire the land, as the acquisition would not

be revived merely by passing a resolution. In the absence of the

steps taken by the Planning Authority, the rights accrued in favour

Kartikeya 22 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

of the owners or persons interested in the land entitle them to issue a

purchase notice for the release of their land.

26. To summarise, it is evident that despite the receipt of the

purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, Respondent

No. 3-Council failed to comply with the notice and did not take the

necessary steps to acquire the land within the prescribed period of

twenty-four months. As a consequence, as per the mandate in

Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation shall be deemed to

have lapsed by operation of law, and the land shall be deemed to be

released from such reservation. Accordingly, the Petitioners are

entitled to the relief as sought.

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, and having regard to

the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and the mandate in

the judgments in Nirmiti, Girnar (supra) and other relied decisions,

we are of the opinion that, despite service of the purchase notice,

Respondent No. 3 has failed to comply with it in accordance with

Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act. Consequently, the

Kartikeya 23 of 24

11-WP-13965-2024 (JUDGMENT).odt

Petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the reservation on the

land has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

28. As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer

clauses (b) and (c), as reproduced above, with the following

directions :

(a) Respondent No.3-Counsel shall issue a communication to

Respondent No.1-State within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of

this order.

(b) The State Government shall issue a notification under

Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act within 60 days thereafter.

29. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to

costs.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Kartikeya 24 of 24