Bombay High Court
Vikramsingh Jaysingrao Ghatge vs The Municipal Council, Kagal And Ors on 6 October, 2014
Author: G.S.Kulkarni
Bench: A.S.Oka, G.S.Kulkarni
Rng 1
wp1226.11.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011
Vikramsinh Jaysingrao Ghatge }
Kagal Senior Office, Plot No.101,
JR 3, Haripuja Puram, 177-E, Nagala }
Park Kasaba Bawda Road,
Kolhapur } .. Petitioner
vs
1. The Municipal Council }
Kagal, Dist Kolhapur.ig
2. Chief Officer/Planning Officer, }
Kagal Municipal Council, Kagal
3. The Assistant Director }
Town Planning 1091, Bindu Chauk,
Kolhapur
}
4. The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Secretary,Urban
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Bombay. }.. Respondents
Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.V.B.Rajure
for Petitioner
Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade for Respondent no.1
Mr.V.S.Gokhale AGP for Respondent nos.3 & 4
Mr.Rajendra P.Gurjar i/b M.V.Kini & Co for
Respondent nos. 5 and 6.
CORAM: A.S.OKA & G.S.KULKARNI,JJ
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 27.8.2014
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 6.10.2014
::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:50 :::
Rng 2
wp1226.11.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per G.S.Kulkarni,J)
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties and at their request taken up for final hearing.
2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed that the reservation nos.8 and 9 made in the development plan of the year 1986 of the Kagal Municipal Council, District Kolhapur for the purpose of extension of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and for a primary school and a play ground in respect of the petitioner's land, being survey No.247/3/1 situated at Kagal District Kolhapur be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to undertake development of the land.
The facts in brief are :
3. The Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.247/2/1 admeasuring 3 hectares situated at Kagal (for short the land).The ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 3 wp1226.11.doc Government in its Urban Development Department had sanctioned a revised development plan for Kagal Municipal Council under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short MRTP Act) vide Notification dated 29.8.1986 which came into force on 15.10.1986. As per the sanctioned development plan, the petitioner's land, was partly reserved under site no.8 and 9 for the purpose of "extension for MSEB" and "primary school" and playground respectively.
The area under reservation was 0.72 ares for each of the said reservation.
4. It is the petitioner's case that since the year 1986 from when the said reservation under the development plan is imposed on the petitioner's land the 1st respondent did not take any steps to acquire the petitioner's land, for public purpose for which it was reserved. As the reservation lasted for almost 24 years with no acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent no.1-planning authority, the Petitioner by its letter dated 7 th April/May, 2003 called upon the 1st respondent to take possession of the petitioner's land and pay compensation to the petitioner failing which it would be presumed that the 1st respondent do not require the petitioner's land and hence further proceedings would be initiated. This letter was ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 4 wp1226.11.doc addressed in respect of the reservation no.9 i.e. for primary school and playground.
5. On 12.5.2003 the 1st respondent passed a resolution considering the said letter issued by the petitioner inter alia recording that in respect of reservation no.9 the petitioner had issued a purchase notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act requesting the 1 st respondent to acquire the petitioner's land for the said public purpose. It was recorded that in view of the weak financial position of the 1st respondent and considering other factors it is in the interest of 1 st respondent that the reservation is cancelled. It was merely resolved that appropriate steps in this regard be taken up for amendment of the development plan.
6. The petitioner issued another letter dated 12.7.2004 to the 1 st respondent in respect of reservation no.8 namely of extension for MSEB requesting the respondent no.1 to take possession of the land reserved for that purpose and pay compensation to the petitioner failing which it would be presumed that the respondent no.1 does not require the land and further proceedings would be then adopted by the petitioner. The ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 5 wp1226.11.doc petitioner thereafter addressed another letter dated 27.2.2004 to the Collector, Kolhapur giving a reference to the letter dated 7.5.2003 issued to the 1st respondent and called upon the 1st respondent to acquire the petitioner's land under reservation no.9. It was stated that the 1 st respondent had passed a resolution that it is not in a financial position to acquire the petitioner's land. It was stated that as the reservation continued for about 30 years the petitioners could not develop the said land. It was therefore, requested that immediate steps be taken to take possession of the petitioner's land and pay compensation or cancel the reservation. It is the petitioner's case that however, nothing was done by the respondents either to acquire the land within a period of six months from the issuance of the petitioner's letter dated 7.5.2003 and 12.7.2004.
The petitioner therefore, submitted an application dated 2.9.2005 to the respondent no.1 to undertake construction on the said land. In response to this application the Chief Officer of Respondent no.1 by his letter dated 6.10.2005 informed the petitioner that his application seeking permission to undertake construction has been rejected as the land of the petitioner is under reservation as site no.9 and that in regard to the said reservation the State Government has not taken any decision and hence the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 6 wp1226.11.doc reservation is continued. As regards reservation in respect of site no.8 for the purpose of extension for MSEB the petitioner again addressed a letter dated 11.7.2009 to the Chief Officer of the respondent no.1 inter alia giving a reference to his letter dated 28.4.2003 addressed to the Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board, Kolhapur requesting to pay compensation to the petitioner and take possession of the land or otherwise cancel the reservation. It was stated that however no action was taken. It was requested that possession of the petitioner's land be taken or reservation be cancelled.
7. The Chief Officer of the respondent no.1 by his letter dated 1.9.2009 again informed the petitioner that the petitioner's application dated 15.7.2009 has been rejected as the petitioner's land is under reservation for the aforesaid public purpose. It is the petitioner's case that he again approached the respondent no.1 by letter dated 28.1.2010 and 5.4.2010 to permit him to undertake construction. However the Chief Officer by his communication dated 22.3.2010 and 5.4.2010 rejected these applications on the ground that the petitioner's land continued to be under reservation.
::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 7wp1226.11.doc
8. The petitioner has filed this petition inter alia contending that by virtue of the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act the reservation is deemed to have lapsed on account of the inaction of the respondents to acquire the petitioner's land within a period of six months after receipt of the letters dated 7.5.2002, 12.7.2004 by which he had called upon the respondent no.1 to acquire the land as per the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act.
9. On behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 a reply affidavit of Mr.Sunil Yeshwant Mali, Municipal Engineer of respondent no.1 has been filed. In this affidavit it is not disputed that the land of the petitioner is kept under reservation for the aforesaid public purposes. It is stated that after the petitioner no.1 issued a purchase notice to the respondent no.1 steps were taken to request the District Collector Kolhapur to convene a meeting of the Municipal Council to take a decision on the purchase notice. The Collector had directed the Municipal Council to convene a general body meeting on 27.10.2003. In the said meeting this issue was discussed and after taking into consideration the financial position of respondent no.1 resolution no.47 was passed recording that in the existing ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 8 wp1226.11.doc financial situation of the Municipal Council it was not possible for the Municipal Council to acquire the petitioner's land by paying compensation to the petitioner. Thereafter, a proposal dated 10.11.2003 was forwarded by the respondent no.1 to the District Collector, Kolhapur to start acquisition proceedings. It is stated that the respondent no. 1 had also forwarded a proposal to the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department dated 15.12.2003 for directions for setting aside the general body resolution dated 22.10.2003. It is stated that the respondent no.1 submitted a proposal dated 21.1.2004 to the District Collector, Kolhapur to acquire the said land and that the District Collector, Kolhapur stayed the resolution of the General Body of respondent no.1 and that this order was confirmed by the State Government by the Commissioner and Regional Director, Pune.
10. On behalf of the State Government (respondent nos.3 and 4) reply affidavit of Shri Madhukar Y. Devde Assistant Director of Town Planning, Kolhapur has been filed. The affidavit confirms that the petitioner's land is kept under reservation as site nos. 8 and 9 for the purpose of extension for MSEB and a primary school and play ground respectively. It is stated that ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 9 wp1226.11.doc the petitioner had made an application to the respondent no.1 stating therein that his land should be acquired for the purpose of the said reservation. It is stated that in these letters of the petitioner the legal provision under which such request was made by him was not mentioned and hence these letters cannot be treated as a purchase notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act. It is stated that taking these letters into consideration the Chief Officer of the respondent no.1 has refused to grant building permission to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner had made an application dated 7.5.2003 12.7.2004 and 11.7.2009 to the respondent no.1 to acquire petitioner's land reserved as site no.9 for primary school and playground or delete the reservation. It is stated that the Chief Officer accordingly had issued a letter dated 23.9.2003 to the Collector for giving directives to the President of respondent no.1 to complete necessary action for acquisition. It is stated that these letters are adequate steps to acquire the petitioner's land which were taken within the stipulated time. It is stated that the Director of Town Planning Maharashtra State, Pune had submitted a report dated 9.1.2004 to the State Government informing that the resolution of the Municipal council was stayed/cancelled under section 308 (1) of the Maharashtra ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 10 wp1226.11.doc NagarParishad, Nagar Panchayati & Industrial Township Act, 1965. It is stated that the Government in Urban Development Department had immediately directed the respondent no.2 to submit a land acquisition proposal to the Collector. It is stated that all these facts show that necessary steps were initiated to acquire the petitioner's land.
11. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that letters dated 7.5.2003, 12.7.2004 and 11.7.2009 were addressed by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 calling upon the respondents to acquire the land for which they are reserved and that the receipt of these letters is not disputed. It is submitted that the respondents have treated these letters to be a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act which according to the petitioners is very apparent from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is further submitted that the contents of the letter were clear by which respondent no.1 was called upon to acquire the land by paying compensation to the petitioner in respect of the said acquisition. It is submitted that the resolution no.47 passed by the respondent no.1 clearly shows that these letters of the petitioners are treated as a purchase notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act. It is submitted that ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 11 wp1226.11.doc respondent nos. 3 and 4 never raised an objection to the petitioner's said letter being not a purchase notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act. It is urged that intention of the petitioner was in clear terms as would satisfy the requirements of section 127 of the MRTP Act namely that the respondents should acquire the land for public purpose for which they are reserved and pay compensation in that regard to the petitioner. It is urged that the said letters of the petitioners are acted upon by respondent no.1 in a resolution being passed that it is not financially feasible for the respondent no.1 to acquire the land of the petitioner and hence appropriate steps be taken in that regard by the State Government. It is submitted that admittedly no steps are taken for a period of six months from the receipt of these letters of the petitioner to acquire the petitioner's land by issuance of a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as it would be required to be done in law to commence acquisition proceedings. It is therefore, submitted that reservation has lapsed by operation of provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act. The petitioners rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girnar Traders vs.State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555 wherein the Supreme Court considering the provisions of section 127 of the M.R.T.P. ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 12 wp1226.11.doc Act 1966 has held that only making of a declaration under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 read with section 126 (4) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 would constitute commencement of the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of section 127 of the MRTP Act.
12. On behalf of the respondents, the reservation is being justified on the ground as taken in their respective reply affidavits. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner for development of the land has been rightly rejected as the land of the petitioner continues to be under reservation for the said public purpose.
13. Having considered the rival submissions it appears that the respondent no.1 had duly received letters dated 7.5.2003, 12.7.2004 and 11.7.2009 addressed by the petitioner. By these letters petitioner had called upon the respondent no.1 to undertake acquisition of the petitioner's land in question for the public purpose namely primary school and playground and extension for MSEB as set out in the development plan. By these letters, the petitioner had categorically requested the respondent no.1 to take possession of the land and to pay compensation to ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 13 wp1226.11.doc the petitioner in that regard. A perusal of resolution no.47 dated 22.10.2003 passed by the respondent no.1 clearly shows that respondent no.1 treated these letters as an intimation under section 127 of the MRTP Act for acquisition of the land and payment of compensation. By this resolution, the respondent no.1 expressed its inability to acquire the land due to financial difficulties. Letters dated 7.5.2003, 12.7.2003 and 11.7.2009 issued by the petitioners were not rejected by the respondent no.1 or for that matter by respondent nos.3 and 4. In fact it appears that even respondent nos 3 and 4 insisted that further steps be taken to acquire the land which is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. For the first time in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 a plea has been taken that the letters dated 7.5.2003, 12.7.2004, 11.7.2009 of the petitioner cannot be treated as a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act. We cannot accept this submission as made on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 that these letters of the petitioner cannot be treated as a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act, for two reasons, firstly, the letters clearly call upon the planning authority namely respondent nos.1 to acquire the land for public purpose under reservation and pay compensation in that regard to the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 14 wp1226.11.doc petitioner and secondly the respondents at no point of time rejected these letters on this ground as averred in the reply affidavit. Moreover, for all purposes respondent no.1 treated these letters to be a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act and understood the same as a purchase notice as is clear from various letters addressed between the parties. To appreciate this contention as raised by respondent nos. 3 and 4 it would be useful to refer to section 127 of the MRTP Act as it then stood. Section 127 reads thus:
Section 127: Lapsing of reservations:
"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 for if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are not commenced within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice on the Planning Authority, Development Authority as the case may be, Appropriate Authority to that effect and if within six 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." (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that what is contemplated is intention on the part of the owner of the land or a person ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 15 wp1226.11.doc interested in the land to serve a notice to the planning authority or appropriate authority to acquire the land for public purpose for which it is reserved. The word 'notice' in this provision would contemplate an intimation that the land which is kept under reservation for ten years from the commencement of the development plan or approved plan has not been acquired by an agreement. This section does not contemplate any particular form in which a notice to that effect is required to be given by the owner of the land. To appreciate that as to what meaning can be attributed to the word 'notice' as used in section 127 it would be useful to examine the dictionary meaning of the word 'notice.' The WEBSTER'S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY of the English language, refers the word "notice" as :-
" information or intelligence to give notice of one's departure (2) and intimation; warning : to serve notice that smoking is not allowed; (3) a note placard, or the like conveying information or a warning: to post a notice about the fire laws (4) a notification of the termination, at a specified time, of an agreement, as for renting or employment, given by one of the parties to the agreement ; (5) observation, perception, attention, or heed ; a book worthy of notice (6) interested or favourable attention; to take notice of an unusual feature in the construction of a building." (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the aforesaid meaning of the word 'notice' by applying the principles of literal interpretation to the word 'notice' as used ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 16 wp1226.11.doc in section 127 of the MRTP Act it would imply that what is contemplated is an intimation or attention of the authorities by the owner or the person interested in the land under reservation that the land has remained under reservation for a period of 10 years from the commencement of the development/regional plan and that the authority should acquire the reserved land after the receipt of such information/notice.
14. In our opinion, a perusal of the letters dated 7.5.2003, 12.7.2004 and 11.7.2009 addressed by the petitioner to the respondents clearly indicate the intention of the petitioner to intimate the planning authority that the land of the petitioner is kept under reservation from the commencement of the development plan and the same is not acquired by an agreement and that the authorities should acquire the land of the petitioner for the said public purpose and pay compensation to the petitioner in that regard. Considering the language by section 127 it would be inappropriate to say that these letters cannot be construed to be a notice under section 127of the MRTP Act.What is significant is that the intention of the petitioner is borne out in these letters of the petitioner which is in conformity and in terms of section 127 of the MRTP Act, hence ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 17 wp1226.11.doc the submission on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4 that these letters of the petitioner cannot be treated as a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act cannot be sustained and deserves to be rejected. It is noteworthy that these letters were never objected by the respondents on this ground that these letters are not purchase notices. The respondents in fact treated these letters of the petitioner as a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act and accordingly further action was resorted.
15. It appears to be an admitted position that after receipt of these letters of the petitioners calling upon the respondents to acquire the petitioner's land no steps have been taken by the respondents to acquire the said land of the petitioner for the said public purpose for which they were reserved which would be by issuance of a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 126 (4) of the MRTP Act, though belated by some movement in that direction was resorted. The obvious consequence of not initiating steps within the stipulated period of six months would be, that by operation of section 127 of the MRTP Act the reservation of the petitioner's land would lapse being a consequence contemplated by section 127 of the MRTP Act. It is appropriate for the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 18 wp1226.11.doc petitioner to rely on the law laid down by the Supreme court in the case of Girnar Traders vs State of Maharashtra (supra). The Supreme Court in this decision considering the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act has held that if no steps are taken on behalf of the authorities to issue a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the land under reservation within a period of six months of the receipt of the purchase notice from the owner of the land or a person interested therein then the reservation shall lapse. Following observations of the Supreme Court are required to be noted:-
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 re- served under the Town Planning Scheme and, therefore, various periods have been prescribed for acquisition of the owner's property. The intent and purpose of the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 has been well ex- plained in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay case 4. 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 is- sued by the State Government by exercising suo motu power under sub- section (4) of Section 126; and till then no declaration could be made un- der Section 127 as regards lapsing of reservation and contemplated decla-
ration of land being released and available for the landowner for his utili- sation as permitted under Section 127. Section 127 permitted inaction on the part of the acquisition authorities for a period of 10 years for dereser- vation of the land. Not only that, it gives a further time for either to ac- quire the land or to take steps for acquisition of the land within a period of six months from the date of service of notice by the landowner for ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 19 wp1226.11.doc 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 into 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 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 mandate is given in a section requiring compliance within a particular period, the strict compliance is required therewith as 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 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 acquisition of the same."
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 steps taken under the section within the time stipulated should be towards acquisition of land. It is a step of acquisition of land and not a 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 20 wp1226.11.doc 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 LAAct. 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 step 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."
16. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrirampur Municipal Council Shrirampur Vs. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher & ors reported in (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 627 the Supreme Court had observed as under :
" 42. We are further of the view that the majority in Girnar Traders (2) 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 21 wp1226.11.doc that the landowners/other interested persons, whose land is utilized 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 300A of the Constitution."
17. In the present case, admittedly a section 6 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was not issued and hence adverting to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions it would be required to be held that reservation of the land in question had lapsed by operation of section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966.
18. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the inevitable conclusion is that the reservation of the petitioner's land in question has lapsed and the land has become available to the petitioner to be developed as otherwise permissible, as in the case of the adjacent land under the Development Plan. Writ Petition therefore, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The State Government is directed to notify the lapsing of the reservation by an order to be published in the Official Gazette as per the ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 ::: Rng 22 wp1226.11.doc requirements of section 127 (2) of the MRTP Act which shall be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today.
Writ Petition is allowed in the above said terms. No order as to costs.
(G.S.Kulkarni,J) (A.S.Oka, J)
::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2014 10:58:51 :::