Balaji Associates through Its Partner vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

13.07.15 asking the municipality to either acquire the disputed land or permit them to develop the same– Appellant again on 31.08.15 sent the second notice – Date of receipt of the second notice heavily contested – Respondent no.3 submitted proposal for acquisition of the disputed land before respondent no.4 (Collector), who informed that the proposal was not in order and the same needs to be resubmitted – Fresh proposal submitted – However, nothing proceeded further and acquisition has not taken place till this point of time – Appellant filed writ petition for declaration that the reservation of their land has lapsed u/s.127– Dismissed – Held: Statutory provision is clear and categorical – s.127(1) mandates that for an owner whose land is reserved, allotted or designated, in terms of final regional plan or developmental plan, needs to serve a notice to inform the municipality and seek its response concerning its interest in acquiring the land, if he wants his property to be dereserved – Owners could de-reserve a plot of land by serving a notice, after the lapse of 10 years from the date of such reservation i.e.10 years from 01.09.05 herein – Once such notice is served, the municipality has 24 months to acquire or take steps for acquisition of land – If municipality does not take the required measures, then the land would be de-reserved and the owner can develop the same – In the present case, reservation of the appellant’s land has lapsed and it has become available to the appellant to be developed – Further, writ courts, usually, should not indulge themselves in factual findings, however the present case has been dragged too long and any further delay would unduly affect the right to enjoy property and benefits thereof – This case turns on the aspect of admission on the part of the respondents, that the second notice was received on 02.09.15 – Second notice can be said to have reached the Municipality on 02.09.15, after the expiry of the stipulated period – State Government directed to notify the lapsing of the reservation by an order to be published in the Official Gazette as per the requirements of s.127(2) which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 4 months from today.

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966– s.127(1), (2) – Plea of the respondents that the fulfilment of requirements u/s.127 (1) does not automatically de-reserve the land, rather it’s a discretion, under sub-s.2 of s.127, bestowed on the Government to choose the land to be de-reserved and publish the same in the Official Gazette – Held: Such mandatory reading of the sub-sec. 2 of s.127, would give unfettered power in the hands of the State to pick and choose – Supreme Court needs to effectively balance the power of eminent domain and the constitutional right of property, which mandates a rational reading of the law, wherein the declaration in the Official Gazette is only consequential and the State needs to follow, if the conditions under sub-sec.127 (1) stands satisfied – Interpretation of Statutes.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The statutory provision is clear and categorical. Section 127 (1), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 mandates that for an owner whose land is reserved, allotted or designated, in terms of final regional plan or developmental plan, needs to serve a notice to inform the municipality and seek its response concerning its interest in acquiring the land, if he wants his property to be de-reserved. As provided under the Section, the time limit to serve such notice accrues from the end date of stipulated period of ten years. Once such notice is served, the municipality has 24 months to acquire or take steps for acquisition of land. If municipality does not take the required measures in accordance with the aforesaid provision, then the land would be de-reserved and the owner can develop the same in accordance with law. Under sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the Act, the Government is required to publish the de-reserved plots in the Official Gazette. It is the contention of the respondents that the second notice was pre-mature as the notice under Section

127 of the Act, is required to be served after completion of the stipulated time. They place their reliance on the acknowledgment signed by the Municipality, while receiving the post which records the event of receival as 01.09.2015. While the appellant rely on the Minutes of the meeting of the General Body, to point the factual discrepancy, wherein the letter is stated to have been received only on 02.09.2015. The writ courts, usually, should not indulge themselves in such factual findings. However, this case has been dragged too long and any further delay would unduly affect the right to enjoy property and benefits thereof. In any case, this case turns on the aspect of admission on the part of the respondents, that the second notice was received on 02.09.2015. The respondents have not denied that their own General Body Meeting Resolution has accepted that the date of receival was 02.09.2015. In this context the same is needed to be accepted. The High Court has ignored the aforesaid aspect, to rely exclusively on the acknowledgment. In the afore-stated circumstances, reliance on the acknowledgment would not be safe. The second notice can be said to have reached the Municipality on 02.09.2015, after the expiry of the stipulated period. The time period of 24 months under Section 127 of the Act, given to the municipal authorities, was increased from 6 months to 12 months by an Amending Act in 2009 (Mah. Act No.

16 of 2009); further, this time period was increased from 12 months to 24 months in 2015 (Mah. Act No. 42 of 2015 w.e.f 29.08.2015). From the aforesaid amendments, it can be noted that the legislative intent was to provide sufficient time for the Municipalities to acquire the land as per the Developmental Plan needed for effective town planning. In any case, the respondents herein have admitted that the fresh proposal was forwarded from the office of respondent no. 3 on 16.12.2016, and the same is currently being processed through the Office of Land Acquisition Officer, Amaravati. The appellant has been denied its right to enjoy benefits of its possession by this protracted litigation. Mere forwarding of the proposal, would not be sufficient under Section

127 (1) of the Act, as the concerned provision distinguishes between ‘step of acquisition of land’ from ‘step for acquisition of land’. The authorities have not taken sufficient steps towards acquisition in this case. As the 24 months’ time period stipulated under the law has elapsed, therefore the necessary procedures under Section 127 (1) of the Act, stand satisfied for de-reserving the disputed land. The respondents have finally argued that the fulfilment of requirements under Section 127 (1) of the Act does not automatically de-reserve the land, rather it’s a discretion, under sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the Act, bestowed on the Government to choose the land to be de-reserved and publish the same in the Official Gazette. Such mandatory reading of the sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the Act, would give unfettered power in the hands of the State to pick and choose. This Court needs to effectively balance the power of eminent domain and the constitutional right of property, which mandates a rational reading of the law, wherein the declaration in the Official Gazette is only consequential and the State needs to follow, if the conditions under sub-section 127 (1) stands satisfied. The usage of ‘On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any land under sub-section (1)’ in the sub-section 2 of Section 127, clearly points towards the aforesaid interpretation. Moreover, the usage of ‘shall’, also indicates the imperative nature of the sub-section, which makes the Government duty bound to publish the same. [Labour Commr. M. P. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mill Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1687] In this case, the requirement under Section 127

(1) are fully satisfied. [Paras 13-19] [290-F-H; 291-A-H; 292-AB; 293-D-H]

1.2 The reservation of the appellant’s land in question has lapsed and the land has become available to the appellant to be developed as otherwise permissible. The State Government is directed to notify the lapsing of the reservation by an order to be published in the Official Gazette as per the requirements of Section 127(2) of the Act which shall be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from today. [Para 21] [294-C]

Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur vs.

Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 627 : [2013] 2 SCR 664 – relied on.

Labour Commr. M. P. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mill Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1687 : AIR 1964 SC 1687 – referred to.