Summary
The Supreme Court held that the reservation of a plot for a private school under the 1993 Amravati development plan had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act once no steps to acquire it were taken within twelve months of the owners' purchase notice of 13.08.2014, so the land was free of reservation when sold to the appellants; it set aside the High Court's view that the purchasers could not take the benefit of the earlier lapse.
Issues
- Whether the reservation of the appellants' plot had lapsed under Section 49(7) or Section 127 of the MRTP Act before they bought it.
- Whether the purchasers had to serve a fresh notice under Section 49 or Section 127 to claim the benefit of the lapse.
- Whether a reservation can be kept in force indefinitely without acquisition.
Provisions considered
- Section 127, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966Since the land was not acquired within ten years of the plan coming into force on 25.02.1993, and no steps were taken within twelve months of the purchase notice of 13.08.2014, the reservation was deemed to have lapsed by 13.08.2015, before the sale to the appellants. (¶¶ 25, 26, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51)
- Section 49, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966Following Chhabildas, if the Appropriate Authority does not apply to acquire within one year of confirmation of a purchase notice the reservation lapses under Section 49(7), and if it does apply, the procedure of Sections 126(4) and 127 must follow. The Court noted that the original owners' purchase notice was confirmed on 02.01.2007 and recorded that the reservation lapsed under Section 49(7) on 02.01.2008. (¶¶ 23, 27, 35, 36, 41)
- Section 126, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966Read with Girnar Traders and Shrirampur Municipal Council, 'steps' for acquisition mean steps leading to the declaration for acquisition, not a mere application, resolution or letter; here no declaration or notification was issued and no compensation deposited. (¶¶ 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 47)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court said that, given the gross delay of almost thirty years, it would in any event have declared the reservation lapsed to do complete justice, as was done in Chhabildas. (¶¶ 40, 41, 52)
Held
- Under Section 127, if land reserved in a plan is not acquired within ten years of the plan coming into force and the owner or a person interested serves notice, the reservation is deemed to lapse if no steps towards acquisition are taken within the statutory period after the notice; the land then becomes available for development as permitted for adjacent land. (¶¶ 26, 30, 34, 46, 47)
- Steps towards acquisition mean steps that actually lead to the declaration for acquisition; a mere application, resolution or letter does not prevent the lapse. (¶¶ 31, 33)
- On the facts, the reservation lapsed under Section 127 on 13.08.2015, twelve months after the owners' notice of 13.08.2014, as no acquisition step followed; when the appellants bought the land on 30.12.2015 there was no subsisting reservation. (¶¶ 44, 45)
- When a reservation lapses by operation of Section 127(1), it lapses for all purposes, and the landowner may use the land as if there were no reservation. (¶ 48)
- A landowner cannot be denied use of his land indefinitely; a restriction on use cannot be open-ended, the statutory timelines for acquisition are sacrosanct and must be observed by the State and its authorities, and the right to property is a constitutional as well as a human right. (¶¶ 38, 39, 42, 43, 50)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's orders set aside; reservation of the plot declared to have lapsed under Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act.