Summary
Landowners sought an order compelling Kolhapur Municipal Corporation to acquire land reserved in its development plan and pay compensation. The Court held that the reservation had lapsed because the required acquisition steps were not taken after the purchase notice. A resolution or budget provision did not suffice, and Gazette notification was consequential rather than a condition of lapse. It also rejected compulsory acquisition or TDR for the unsuitable flood-affected land on these facts.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could compel acquisition after statutory lapse of the reservation.
- Whether a resolution, budget provision or absence of Gazette notification prevented lapse.
- Whether the landowners could instead compel grant of transferable development rights.
Provisions considered
- Sections 126 and 127, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966No acquisition declaration within the applicable period after the purchase notice meant lapse; preliminary resolutions and correspondence did not suffice. Gazette notification was consequential. (¶ 10-14)
- Sections 21, 22 and 31(5), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966Planning authorities must assess suitability and usability when reserving private land for public purposes. (¶¶ 9-9.5, 15-16)
- Clause 11.2.3(viii) and (ix), Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra State, 2020The exclusions concerning water bodies and undevelopable reservations supported rejection of the TDR request. (¶ 17.2)
Held
- A municipal resolution, budgetary provision and request for acquisition did not constitute the statutory acquisition steps. With no declaration within the applicable one-year period after this purchase notice, the reservation lapsed by operation of law. (¶ 10.2-12)
- Notification under Section 127(2) is a consequential procedural act. Its absence does not prevent lapse under Section 127(1), after which the owner may use the land subject to the planning statute rather than the former reservation. The High Court could not compel acquisition on that lapsed reservation. (¶ 12-14)
- The authority should assess whether reserved land is suitable and usable for its designated purpose. The flood-affected land required substantial development; compulsory acquisition and compensation could not be ordered on these facts. Financial constraints were relevant, but were not a sufficient sole consideration. (¶¶ 9.2-9.5, 15-16)
- The owners had expressly declined TDR before the High Court and could not then insist upon it. The unsuitable character of the land and regulatory exclusions also defeated that request; the Corporation could not be compelled to grant TDR here. (¶ 17-17.2)
- The acquisition-mandamus judgment was set aside and the owners’ writ petition dismissed. The connected appeal was partly allowed to declare lapse of the reservation. There was no order as to costs. (¶ 18-19)
Result
Principal appeal allowed; acquisition mandamus set aside and landowners’ writ petition dismissed. TDR request rejected. Connected appeal partly allowed to declare statutory lapse of the reservation. No costs.