Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a claim that development-plan reservation had lapsed where an acquisition declaration was issued within ten years of the original plan. The subsequent owners’ reliance on their predecessors’ notice therefore failed, and the revised plan continued the reservation. The Court declined exceptional release under Article 142, noting the purchase with apparent knowledge of reservation, while preserving future statutory remedies after the revised plan’s ten-year period.
Issues
- Whether the predecessors’ notice produced statutory lapse despite a timely acquisition declaration.
- Whether the revised plan or prolonged inaction justified release of the land, including under Article 142.
Provisions considered
- Section 127, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966A declaration within ten years of the original plan prevented the asserted notice-based lapse; the revised plan governed the next opportunity to serve notice. (¶¶ 7, 25, 26, 27, 37)
- Section 126(4), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966The 1992 declaration constituted the relevant timely acquisition step; a fresh declaration under the revised plan would require valuation at that declaration date. (¶¶ 12, 25, 26, 32)
- Section 38, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966The revision provision did not invalidate this revised plan merely because it was brought into effect more than twenty years after the original plan. (¶¶ 30, 31)
Held
- The original plan took effect in 1984 and the Section 126(4) declaration was published in 1992. Because the relevant acquisition step occurred within ten years, the 2004 notice did not produce lapse. The municipal resolution or letters could not independently establish statutory lapse. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 35)
- Revision did not revive a reservation that had already lapsed; rather, this reservation had never lapsed. The challenge based on the timing of revision also failed on the statutory scheme and the facts. (¶¶ 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31)
- Decades of inaction required concern, but Article 142 relief was declined in light of the appellants’ 2006 purchase with apparent knowledge of reservation and the 2012 revised plan. The earlier exceptional-release decisions were distinguishable. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- The appellants could serve a Section 127 notice after ten years from 15 May 2012 unless acquisition action intervened. The Court expressed no view on Section 49 and left available remedies open. (¶ 37)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs, leaving available remedies open. No view expressed on invoking Section 49.