- Case
- SHAKUNTALA RANGANATH LOHAPATRE AND ANR v. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 05-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
Facts: The Petitioners sought a declaration that the reservation of their land for a playground had lapsed because the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) did not take steps to acquire the land within the statutory period after the notification dated March 2/5, 2012 and the purchase notice dated November 2, 2022. The Petitioners argued that the old Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, which stipulated a six-month period, should apply. The Corporation contended that it had initiated the acquisition process by passing a resolution and sending a proposal to the District Collector.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking a Writ of Certiorari and a Writ of Mandamus.
Issue: Whether the period of limitation for acquiring land reserved under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) should be determined based on the date of the initial notification or the date of the purchase notice, considering the amendment to Section 127 of the MRTP Act which extended the period from twelve to twenty-four months.
Holding: The Court held that the amended period of twenty-four months, as prescribed in Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act on the date of issuance of the purchase notice (November 2, 2022), applies, and not the period applicable at the time of the initial notification. Therefore, the petition was premature.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that once the MRTP Act was amended, reliance on a notification prior to the amendment was misplaced. The amendment, effective from August 29, 2015, increased the period from six months to twelve months and then to twenty-four months. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the old section should apply because the draft Development Plan was partly sanctioned earlier. The Court stated that the relevant date for determining the applicable period is the date of issuance of the purchase notice. The Court found the Corporation's actions to be within the extended statutory period.
