MR. NILESH PRAKASHRAO MORE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU ITS URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS
Deemed Lapsing of Reservation Under MRTP Act - Revised Development Plan Sanctioned During Notice Period Resets Ten-Year Acquisition Cycle as No Vested Right Exists Until Notice Period Expires.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:14949-DB
Decision Date: 27-03-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Section 127 - Lapsing of Reservations; Section 38 - Revision of Development Plan; Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and Article 300A; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Facts: The petitioner is the owner of land in Phaltan, Satara, which was reserved for a Regional Transport Office (RTO) under a 1992 Development Plan. After the mandatory ten-year period for acquisition under the original plan expired in 2002, the Planning Authority initiated a third revision of the Development Plan in 2010. The petitioner purchased the land in 2012 and subsequently issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act on 17th November 2015. However, while the statutory notice period was still running, the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the revised Development Plan on 23rd May 2016, which continued the same RTO reservation. The petitioner contended that the reservation had lapsed as the authority failed to acquire the land within twenty-four months of the notice.
- Procedural Posture: The matter was referred to a Larger Bench (three-judge bench) of the Bombay High Court to resolve a perceived conflict between different Division Bench decisions regarding whether a revised Development Plan sanctioned during the currency of a purchase notice period resets the acquisition clock.
- Issue: Whether the sanction of a revised development plan, imposing a fresh reservation after the receipt of a purchase notice but before the expiry of the prescribed statutory period for acquisition, continues the reservation for a further period of ten years?
- Holding: Yes. The Court held that if a revised final development plan is sanctioned in compliance with Section 38 after the receipt of a purchase notice but prior to the expiry of the twenty-four-month period, the reservation continues for a fresh period of ten years.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that no vested right for lapsing of reservation is created in a landowner merely by the issuance of a purchase notice under Section 127. Such a right only crystallizes upon the "expiry" of the prescribed period (now twenty-four months) if no steps for acquisition are taken. Relying on the Supreme Court's dictum in "Prafulla C. Dave vs. Municipal Commissioner", the Court observed that a revised plan under Section 38 gives the reservation a "new lease of life". To hold otherwise would render the Planning Authority's statutory power to revise plans every twenty years under Section 38 nugatory. Since the revised plan was sanctioned before the twenty-four-month window closed, the previous purchase notice became ineffective, and the reservation subsists.
🔒 For Members Only