Summary
The Supreme Court explained that a timely acquisition application following confirmation of a Section 49 purchase notice does not permit indefinite reservation under the MRTP Act. Sections 126 and 127 continue to govern subsequent acquisition and lapse. Ordinarily, after ten years a second notice under Section 127 is necessary. On the exceptional facts here, prolonged unexplained inaction justified release of the reservation and acquisition proposal under Article 142 despite absence of that second notice. The Court expressly required the statutory notice procedure in future cases.
Issues
- How Sections 49, 126 and 127 interact after a timely application to acquire reserved land.
- Whether prolonged inaction warranted exceptional release without a second Section 127 notice.
Provisions considered
- Sections 49, 126 and 127, as applicable, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966A timely application under Section 49(7) avoids lapse at that stage but does not displace later acquisition obligations or the Section 127 procedure. (¶¶ 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 26, 31)
Held
- Under Section 49(7), failure to apply for acquisition within one year of confirmation of the purchase notice causes reservation to lapse. A timely application instead brings Sections 126 and 127 into operation; it does not authorize indefinite delay. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 24)
- Ordinarily a Section 126(4) declaration should follow within one year of receipt of the application; if it does not, an aggrieved person may seek a court direction for its immediate issue. The relevant valuation is at the Section 6 declaration. This reasonable-time guidance does not by itself create automatic lapse immediately on expiry of that year. (¶¶ 15, 24)
- Once ten years have elapsed under the plan, a notice under Section 127 is required for lapse through that section. Under the statutory version considered, acquisition or qualifying acquisition steps must follow within one year of service. A mere resolution or request for acquisition is insufficient; the Court followed the authorities requiring the statutory declaration. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Here an acquisition application had been made within time, but nothing effective followed for an inordinately long period: about fifteen years since the plan and over ten since the Section 49 notice, without any court stay. The Court expressly invoked Article 142 to declare the reservation and acquisition proposal lapsed. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- This exceptional relief did not remove the requirement of a second purchase notice. For future Section 49 cases the Court expressly directed compliance with Section 127 after ten years from publication of the relevant plan. (¶¶ 24, 30, 31)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Under Article 142, reservation and acquisition proposal declared lapsed on the exceptional facts of prolonged inaction. Future cases must follow Section 127, including its second-notice requirement.