Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.126 – Land reserved for public purpose in 2002 – After expiry of ten years, land owners served notice calling upon the respondents to acquire the land but still the land was not acquired – Land owners filed writ petition before High Court seeking direction to respondent to treat their land as released from the development plan and that reservation for playground be declared to have lapsed to the extent of the land owned by them – High Court held that the reservation of land in the development plan stood lapsed as no declaration under s.126 was published, however, the Planning Authority was given one year time to acquire the land reserved – Instant appeal filed by land owners against the restriction of one year put by High Court giving additional time to respondents to acquire the land – Held: Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept openended for indefinite period – The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under s.126 of the Act – Additional one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015 – Such time-line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State – The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose – If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain – In view thereof, direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening the time-line fixed under the Statute – Consequently, direction to acquire the land within one year is set aside – Land acquisition.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Once the Act does not contemplate any further period for acquisition, the Court cannot grant additional period for acquisition of land. The land was reserved for a public purpose way back in 2002. By such reservation, the land owner could not use the land for any other purpose for ten years. After the expiry of ten years, the land owner had served a notice calling upon the respondents to acquire the land but still the land was not acquired. The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section
126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State. The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain. In view thereof, the direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening the time line fixed under the Statute. [Paras 7, 8, 9][301-B-F] Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar& Ors. (2019) 14 SCC
411; Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 54 : [1991] 3 SCR 102 – 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.