Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The subject matter is land identified under Survey No. 125A/4B/2, admeasuring about 83 Ares, situated at village Aundh, Dist. Pune. The land had been kept under reservation for the public purpose of a garden in the development plan of Pune notified on 8th July, 1966. The said reservation for garden purpose was continued as per new revised Development Plan dated 5th January, 1987, draft plan of which was published in 1982. The petitioners had purchased the land from the original owners Wakde and others in the year 1989. The Pune Municipal Corporation it is stated had taken no steps for acquisition of the said land within the period of 10 years from the year 1966. The present petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 5467 of 1989 on 29th August, 1989 for deletion and/or de-reservation of the said land from the designated public purpose i.e. garden. After filing of the petition under legal advice, the petitioners served the purchase notice dated 5th October, 1989 under Section 56 read with Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.P. Act) with the Pune Municipal Corporation calling upon them to acquire the said land in question within a period of 6 months from the receipt of the notice. The purchase notice was received by the Pune Municipal Corporation on 3rd November, 1989 and also served on the City Engineer on 16/10/1989 and Assistant Engineer, Development Plan Department on 18/10/1989. As the Pune Municipal Corporation did not take any action on the aforesaid purchase notice, they submitted the lay-out plan to Pune Municipal Corporation on 5th October, 1990. The lay-out plan was however rejected by the Pune Municipal Corporation by letter dated 29th October, 1990 on the footing that no purchase notice was received by them and requested the petitioner for proof of the original copy. It is the petitioners case that on 3rd November, 1990 the petitioner submitted the letter along with original proof copy duly acknowledged by the City Engineer office and Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation. Once again, on 13th December, 1990 the Pune Municipal Corporation wrote to the petitioners Architect and refused permission on the ground that the petitioners had not shown the original receipt of having served the purchase notice and as such the purchase notice was not served on the Corporation. It was also informed that the said land was reserved as per the 1987 development plan for garden purpose and, therefore, the lay-out plan could not be sanctioned.

4. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. It is set out that the contention of the petitioners that they had given a purchase notice dated 5/10/1989 under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act is not borne out from the records of the Corporation and as such the contention that the reservation has lapsed is not tenable. The revised development plan it is stated came into force in the year 1987 in which the said property is shown as reserved for public garden. Notice, assuming it to have been served, is within 2 years of the revised development plan. This is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. When the alleged purchase notice was served, Writ Petition No. 5469 of 1989 was pending and as such, the notice is not legal. It is then pointed out that the draft development plan was published in 1982. The owners did not take any objection to the reservation. The petitioners purchased the land in 1989 after the plan was notified in 1987. The Standing Committee of the Pune Municipal Corporation passed a Resolution No. 219 on 30/5/1991 resolving to acquire the said property. Steps for acquisition for the public purpose of garden and proposal for acquisition has been sent to the Collector, Pune by letter dated 16/3/1992. Further proceedings for acquisition are being carried out by the Special Land Acquisition No. 15, Pune. The purchase notice it is pointed out was not served on the respondent No. 1 as per the provisions of Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act and as the proceedings for acquisition of the said property had commenced, the lay out proposal was rightly rejected by order dated 29/10/1990.

5. On behalf of the petitioners, learned Counsel contends that the question which arises for consideration is, "Whether the respondent No. 1 is right in holding that the petitioners purchase notice dated 5th October, 1989 under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act is premature, because the revised development plan for Pune was published on 5th January, 1987 and, therefore, the notice being within two years from the date, is premature."

6. In support of the contentions, it is submitted that the publication of the revised development plan will not in any manner change the original development plan of 1966 as all that has happened in 1987 is that the development plan of 1966 has been revised under Section 38 of the M.R.T.P. Act. This does not, therefore, constitute a new plan so as to alter the date of final development plan. It is submitted that a reading of the said section itself makes this position abundantly clear If the argument of the respondents has to be accepted, then, it virtually means that the right of an owner to receive compensation and/or to have a declaration that the reservation has lapsed can perpetually be defeated which is certainly not the intention of the legislature. It is submitted that Section 26(2)(2)(iv) of the M.R.T.P. Act speaks about preparation and publication of draft plan and in particular a report of the stages of development by which it proposed to meet any obligation imposed on the planning authority by the draft development plan. Section 22(b) and (c) of the M.R.T.P. Act indicates the manner in which the use of land in the area of the planning authority is to be regulated and further the manner in which the development of the land is to be carried out. Section 31(5), it is submitted, pertains to the sanction of the draft development plan and in particular prescribes that if a development plan contains any proposal for designation of any land for the purposes specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 22 and if such land does not vest in the planning authority the State Government shall not include that purpose in the development plan, unless it is satisfied that the planning authority will be able to acquire such land by private agreement or compulsory acquisition not later than 10 years from the date on which the development plan comes into operation. In the instant case, the development plan as prepared in 1964 and published in 1966, shows the area to be reserved for garden purpose. The same reservation is merely continued in the year 1987 under a revised development plan. Even as of date, there is no acquisition of the land. Therefore, virtually for a period of 40 years the planning authority has been unable to acquire the land for the reserved purposes. Section 38 prescribes revision of development plan and by amendment of 1994 the period of 10 years has been substituted by a period of 20 years. In the present case, it is submitted that once in 20 years from the date on which a development plan has come into operation and where a development plan has been sanctioned in parts, then atleast once in 20 years from the date on which the last part has come into operation a planning authority may revise the development plan either wholly or in parts, after carrying out, if necessary a fresh survey and preparing an existing land use map of the area. In the present case, although the development has been revised and published in 1987 the fact that the reservation is continued clearly indicates that the revision of the development plan has been in parts. Therefore, so far as the reserved area is concerned, the relevant date for the purposes of calculating the statutory period under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act has to be that of the plan of 1966. It is, therefore, submitted that the spirit of the provisions is not to deprive the land owner from the beneficial use of his land, but at the same time to maintain the pressure on the planning authority to acquire the land within 10 years, failing which to permit the owner to serve purchase notice. It is submitted that the fundamental point which requires to be answered is whether a revised development plan is a fresh plan or only a periodical revision of the original development plan. Since many provisions of the original development plan get implemented and since others remain unimplemented as also certain additional requirements are necessary for a growing city revisionary exercise needs to be periodically undertaken. It is submitted that this cannot be a replacement of the final development plan and can only be a revision thereof. Section 127, therefore, contemplates 10 years from the commencement of the final development plan and not the revised development plan which could have been clearly specified if so intended.

A Development plan which has come into operation shall be called the "final Development plan" and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be binding on the Planning Authority.

9. We may now examine the citations relied upon to find out whether the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners is supported by those Judgments. The learned Counsel relied upon a unreported Judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Haribhau Tamane and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 3642 of 1988 decided on 6th November, 1989. In that case, the issue was also in respect of the development plan notified on 15/8/1966 for the planning area of Pune Municipal Corporation. The petitioners there served a notice and the six months period expired on 27/7/1979. It was contended by the petitioners that the reservation had lapsed and the petitioners were entitled to develop the land on their own. It was contended on behalf of the Corporation that the land was originally reserved for a garden. A fresh reservation for hospital was made in the plan sanctioned by the Government in the year 1982 and as such the period of ten years has not lapsed. It was also contended that steps were taken for acquisition of the land as contemplated by Section 126 and 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. Reliance was placed on the Government Notification dated 5/1/1987. The Court noted that there was no plan sanctioned for the first time in the year 1982, but certain modifications were considered and proposals were sent in the year 1982 for reservation and also certain modifications in the plan. The Court observed that does not mean that the plan itself had come in existence in 1982. The Court noted, that what was done by the draft plan as suggested in the year 1982 and approved thereafter, is that the original plan sanctioned by the Government in 1966 came to be modified. It was sought to be contended relying on this Judgment that this Court has taken a view that the plan as prepared under Section 38 cannot be considered to be a final development plan, but is only a revised plan and what is to be considered is the plan which was notified under Section 29(6). It is not possible to accept the said contention. From the facts, what is clear is that before the proposal of 1982, a notice had already been sent and the period for the planning authority to take action had come to an end on 27/7/1979. In other words, before the draft revised plan was notified the reservation had lapsed pursuance to the notice under Section 127. The original reservation was for a hospital and under the draft plan of 1982, the reservation of hospital was sought to be continued. The issue as canvassed before us was not at all issue. In our opinion, therefore, the Judgment in Narayan Haribhau Tamane (supra) will not support the submission as contended on behalf of the petitioners herein.