MUKUND MOHAN KURUNBHATTI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Lapsing of Land Reservation under MRTP Act: Failure to Acquire within Statutory Period Results in Lapsing; Amendment to Notice Period Not Retrospective.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:33538-DB
Decision Date: 04-12-2025
List of Laws
Article 226 of the Constitution of India; The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act); Section 127 of the MRTP Act; The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Case Brief
- Facts: The petitioners owned land in Chalisgaon, which was initially reserved for 'Play Ground and School' in the development plan of 1989. They purchased Survey No. 303/1/1C in 2014. After purchasing the land, the Petitioner No. 1 issued a purchase notice on 16.02.2015 under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966, as no steps were taken for acquisition within ten years. The Municipal Council then sent a land acquisition proposal to the Collector. Subsequently, a revised development plan in 2016 re-reserved the land for 'Primary School and Play Ground' as Site No. 46. The Municipal Council contended that the petitioners' land was actually reserved under Site No. 42 for a "Slum Clearance Scheme" and that the purchase notice was premature because the revised plan extended the cause of action.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, seeking a declaration that the reservation on their land had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act and that the re-reservation in the revised development plan was invalid.
- Issue: (1) Did the initial reservation on the petitioners' land lapse due to the Municipal Council's failure to initiate acquisition proceedings within the statutory period after the purchase notice was served under Section 127 of the MRTP Act? (2) Did the subsequent revised development plan, re-reserving the land, extend the period for initiating acquisition, thereby nullifying the effect of the purchase notice? (3) Does the amendment to Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, extending the notice period from twelve to twenty-four months, apply retrospectively to the purchase notice issued by the petitioners?
- Holding: (1) Yes, the initial reservation lapsed because the Municipal Council failed to comply with Section 127 of the MRTP Act. (2) No, the subsequent revision of the development plan did not give a fresh lease of life for another ten years. (3) No, the amendment to Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act is not retrospective in operation.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Municipal Council failed to initiate acquisition proceedings within the stipulated time after the purchase notice, leading to the lapsing of the reservation. The Court relied on the Apex Court's observations in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others to emphasize that a statutory right accrues to the landowner if the land is not acquired within the specified period. The Court also held that the amendment extending the notice period in Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act is not retrospective, citing Sadashiv Tryambak Rajebahadur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department and others. The Court stated that once the reservation lapsed, the Municipal Council could not re-reserve the land, as it stood released from reservation upon completion of the statutory period. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the State Government to notify the lapsing of the reservation.