Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 – ss.49, 126,
127 – Obligation to acquire land on refusal of permission or on grant of permission in certain cases – On facts, appellant’s land reserved for public purpose under a development plan – Issuance of purchase notice u/s.49(1)(e) – State Government confirmed the purchase notice and stated that proceedings for acquisition of land would be initiated within one year – Submission of proposal for acquisition, however, no action taken – Letter by the owner to the Commissioner that since no action took place, the said proposal has lapsed and thus, the land to be returned to the owner – However, the Commissioner’s stand that acquisition proposal is in process and there was no lapse – Writ petition by appellant – Dismissed by the High Court – Held: Section 49(1) itself states that the purchase notice must require the appropriate authority to purchase the interest in the land “in accordance with the provisions of this Act” – Once the appropriate authority makes the necessary application to acquire the land within time u/s.49(7), the Court moves over to ss.126 and
127 – Scheme of ss.126 and 127 makes it clear that if 10 years have passed from the date of publication of the development plan, and purchase notice has been served u/s. 127, and no steps have been taken within one year from the date of service of such notice, all proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed – Thus, even in cases covered by s. 49, the drill of s.126(4) and s.127 will have to be followed, subsequent to the appropriate authority making an application to acquire the land within the period specified in s. 49(7) – In the instant case, 15 years have passed since the date of publication of the development plan, and over 10 years have passed since the date of the purchase notice issued u/s.49 – Letter shows that an application was made within the requisite time period to acquire the said land – However, since after the said letter nothing has been done to acquire the appellant’s property, the reservation contained in the development plan as well as acquisition proposal have lapsed, in order to do complete justice between the parties u/Art. 142 – Constitution of India – Art. 142.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The object of Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 is clear that once a purchase notice is received by the authorities, there arises, as the marginal note to the Section also indicates, an obligation to acquire land. The timelines contemplated by the section also indicate that the owner or person affected cannot be left to hang indefinitely without a decision to follow up the purchase notice by acquisition of the land in question. However, the submission that Section 49 abruptly ends with sub-section (7), after which there are no timelines indicated as to what is to happen after the appropriate authority makes an application to acquire the land within one year from the date of confirmation of the notice, cannot be accepted. Inasmuch as Section 49(1) itself states that the purchase notice must require the appropriate authority to purchase the interest in the land “in accordance with the provisions of this Act”. This being so, once the appropriate authority makes the necessary application to acquire the land within time under Section 49(7), the Court moves over to Sections 126 and 127 of the Act. [Paras 12, 13][423-H; 424-A-C]
1.2 Under Section 126(1)(c), when after the publication of a draft regional plan or development or other plan, any land is required or reserved for a public purpose, the appropriate authority may make an application to the State Government, for acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act. Under subsection (2) thereof, on receipt of such application, if the State Government is satisfied that the land specified in the application is needed for the public purpose specified therein, then excepting the cases falling under Section 49, the State Government may make a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, to that effect. However, such declaration under Section 126(2) must be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of the plan in question. [Para 14][424-D-F]
1.3 A purchase notice may be served under Section 49, after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the plan in question, in which case Section 126(2) of the Act will not apply. Under Section 126(4), the State Government may make a declaration under Section 6 subject to the modification that the market value of the land shall be the market value at the date of the declaration in the official gazette made for acquiring the land. But this does not mean that the State Government has carte blanche to do as it pleases. Ordinarily, the State Government is bound to act under Section 126(4) within a reasonable time from the appropriate authority making an application to acquire the land. This should ordinarily be within a period of one year from the date such an application is made. However, if such declaration is not made within the said period, it would be open for the aggrieved person to move the Court to direct the State Government to make the requisite declaration immediately. Thereafter, Section 127 kicks in. If a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is not made within a period of 10 years from the date on which a plan comes into force under subsection (4) of Section 126, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve a purchase notice on the authorities, and if within one year from the date of service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed. [Paras 15, 16][424-G-H; 425-A-C]
1.4 In all Section 49 cases, where a purchase notice has been served and is confirmed within the period specified, the appropriate authority must make an application to acquire the land within one year from the date of confirmation of the notice. If it does not do so, the reservation, designation, etc. shall be deemed to have lapsed. If within the period specified in Section 49(7), the appropriate authority makes the requisite application, then the State Government may acquire the land by making a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as set out u/s.nder Section 126(4), wherein the market value shall be the market value of the land as on the date of the Section 6 declaration. Ordinarily, such declaration must be made within 1 year of the date of receipt of the requisite application. In case this not done, it will be open to the aggrieved person to move the Court to direct the State Government to make the requisite declaration immediately. If 10 years have passed from the date of publication of the plan in question, and a purchase notice has been served u/s. 127, and no steps have been taken within a period of one year from the date of service of such notice, all proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thus, even in cases covered by s. 49, the drill of s. 126(4) and s. 127 will have to be followed, subsequent to the appropriate authority making an application to acquire the land within the period specified in s. 49(7). [Para 24][431-B-G]
1.5 In the instant case, 15 years have passed since the date of publication of the development plan, and over 10 years have passed since the date of the purchase notice issued under Section 49. Considering the fact that there has been no stay at any stage by any Court, it is clear that an inordinately long period of time has elapsed, both since the date of publication of the development plan, as well as the date of the purchase notice served under Section 49. No doubt, the letter of 26.9.2008 shows that an application was made within the requisite time period to acquire the aforesaid land. However, on facts, since after the said letter nothing has been done to acquire the appellant’s property, the reservation contained in the development plan as well as acquisition proposal have lapsed. It is made clear that this is held in order to do complete justice between the parties under Article
142 of the Constitution of India. However, in all future cases that may arise under the provisions of Section 49, the drill of Section
127 must be followed, i.e. that after 10 years have elapsed from the date of publication of the relevant plan, a second purchase notice must be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 127, in order that lapsing can take place under the aforesaid Section. [Para 31][433-F-H; 434-A-B]
Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC
555 : [2007] 9 SCR 383; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association & Ors. (1988) Suppl. SCC 55 : [1988] SCR 21;
Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai
Bhimaji Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627: [2013] 2 SCR 664; Prakash R. Gupta v. Lonavala Municipal Council and others (2009) 1 SCC 514 : [2008] 16 SCR 1067; Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 154 : [2014] 11 SCR 377 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.