-1- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 7258 OF 2024 PETITIONERS : 1. Kulwantsingh S/o. Hardayalsingh Sethi, Aged about 76 Years, Occu: Business. 2. Gurubirkaur, W/o. Gurucharansingh Sethi, Aged about 61 Years, Occu: Household. 3. Jaswindersingh S/o. Gurucharansingh Sethi, Aged about 33 Years, Occu: Contractor. All Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are R/o. Ekta Nagar, Mehkar, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana. 4. Jitendrasingh S/o. Gurucharansingh Sethi, Aged abut 29 Years, Occu. Business, R/o. Buldhana, Tq. & Dist. Buldhana. 5. Surjitsingh S/o. Hardayalsingh Sethi, Aged about 71 Years, Occu: Business, R/o. Tapadiya Nagar, Akola. 6. Gurudipsingh S/o. Hardayalsingh Sethi, Aged 69 Years, Occu: Advocate, R/o. Flat No. 56, Kailash, Phase-3, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. //VERSUS// RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Director of Town Planning, State of Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune-1. 2026:BHC-NAG:9047-DB -2- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt 2. The Municipal Council/Nagar Parishad of City of Mehkar, through its Chief Officer, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana. 3. The Assistant Director Town Planning, Buldhana, Dist. Buldhana. 4. The Collector, Buldhana, acting through the Sub-Divisional Officer Mehkar, appointed as Special Land Acquisition Officer, SDO Office Mehkar, Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana. 5. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai. __________________________________________________________ Mr. G.K. Mundhada, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. K.P. Mahalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5/State. __________________________________________________________ CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 10 th JULY , 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) Heard Mr. G.K. Mundhada, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K.P. Mahalle, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Ms. T.H. Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5/State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. -3- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt 3. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the reservation of the land owned by the petitioners in the Revised Final Development Plan stands lapsed from the reservation under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the MRTP Act”, for the sake of brevity). 4. Brief facts, leading to the present petition, are as follows: The present petitioners are the joint owners and persons interested in Survey No.76/2, admeasuring a total area of 1.00 H.R., situated at Village Mehkar, Taluka Mehkar and District Buldhana (hereinafter referred to as “the aforesaid land” for the sake of brevity). 5. The Revised Draft Development Plan of the city of Mehkar was sanctioned by the State Government under sub section (5) of Section 31 of the MRTP Act, vide Notification No. TPS-2611/379/CR- 132(1)/2012UD/-30, published on 03.04.2012 and came into force on 15.05.2012. The aforesaid land is reserved for Town Hall/Community Centre and Library vide Reservation No.24 and 12 metre wide DP Road by the respondents. 6. The aforesaid land was converted into non-agricultural land by virtue of an order dated 13.05.1964, of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehkar, District Buldhana in Revenue Case No. 6/11/6364. The petitioners made an application to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 26.12.2018, as they wanted to use the aforesaid land for construction of Function Hall and Garden. However, permission was denied vide letter dated 25.02.2019 on the ground that the land was reserved for the -4- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt purpose of Town Hall, Community Centre, and Library vide Reservation No.24. 7. Since the petitioners were deprived and restricted to use the aforesaid land, they issued a purchase notice dated 02.03.2019 under Section 49 of the MRTP Act personally and was duly served on the same day. The said notice was accompanied with 7/12 extracts, proposed commercial function hall building plan, rejection letter by respondent No.2 dated 25.02.2019, copy of part plan along with relevant portion of Revised Draft Development Plan, Mehkar. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, respondent No.1 called upon respondent Nos.2 and 3 to submit a detailed report of development in the vicinity of the aforesaid land. As the notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act completed every requirement, respondent No.1, on 24.07.2019, conducted the hearing on the said notice. Thereafter, on 31.08.2019, respondent No.1 confirmed the notice and directed respondent No.3 to acquire the aforesaid land within a period of one year from the date of confirmation of the purchase notice. 9. On 14.01.2020, respondent No.2 forwarded the proposal for acquisition to the Collector, Buldhana for initiation of acquisition proceedings of the aforesaid land, and the Collector, Buldhana issued an order to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to complete the acquisition proceedings by adhering the statutory provision. 10. It is an admitted position that, till date, respondent No.2 has neither deposited the preliminary amount of 30% of proposed acquisition cost of the aforesaid land with respondent No.4 as required -5- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt under the statutory provisions for issuance of notification under Section 29 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with Section 126 of the MRTP Act nor furnished the required measurement sheet. Due to such incomplete acquisition proposal, respondent No.4 could not issue notification for acquisition. On 15.07.2021, respondent No.2 paid Rs.12,000/- to the Settlement Commissioner and the Director of Land Records for measurement of the aforesaid land and submitted the Challan of the same. 11. In view of the inaction on the part of the respondents in completing the acquisition proceedings and the statutory period of twelve months for sending complete proposal for acquisition being expired on 30.08.2020, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 711 of 2022, which is at record page No.60 (Annexure-H), seeking a direction upon respondent No.2 to pay compensation in respect of the aforesaid land reserved under the Development Plan. The said writ petition, however, came to be withdrawn by order dated 08.02.2023, which is at record page No.76 (Annexure-I), in view of the observation that the statutory period of ten years had expired. 12. As the petitioners were interested in developing the aforesaid land, they issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act through their counsel to the respondents on 22.06.2022, which is at record page No.91 (Annexure–K). Upon which, respondent No.2 gave its reply stating that the notice is not clear and the petitioners have not annexed the updated documents. Thereafter, on 19.10.2022, the -6- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt petitioners sent a fresh purchase notice with all updated documents, which was duly served upon respondent No.2 on the same day, i.e., 19.10.2022. 13. On perusal of the aforesaid notice, it reveals that the petitioners have duly enclosed all the requisite documents showing their title, i.e., 7/12 extract, Joint Measurement Sheet, Google Map, the Part Plan, and the Notification issued by the Urban Development under Section 6 of the MRTP Act. Thereafter, respondent No.2, vide communication dated 20.03.2023, admitted that the aforesaid land was under reservation for more than 10 years and the said development plan, due to which the reservation was made, was never executed and offered compensation in terms of the Transfer of Development Rights or Floor Space Index in view of the development plan, which was rejected by the petitioners vide letter dated 06.04.2023. 14. Mr. Mundhada, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the period of 24 months, as contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, expired on 18.10.2024, and since the respondents have not taken any steps for acquisition of the aforesaid land, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the reservation has lapsed. 15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed a reply, wherein respondent No.2 has admitted the title of the petitioners, the reservation of the land, and the issuance of the purchase notices dated 02.03.2019 under Section 49 of the MRTP Act and 19.10.2022 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, both of which were duly served on the -7- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt same day. However, it is a ground of respondent No.2 that the purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was issued seeking lapsing of reservation of the entire land admeasuring 1.46 H.R. and the earlier proposal was sent only for 1 H.R. land and, due to which, respondent No.2 had to forward a fresh proposal for acquisition on 31.08.2023. Such ground raised by respondent No.2 looses its force, as the fact remains that the submission of proposal for acquisition of land and seeking financial help in acquiring the aforesaid land does not constitute the steps as contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, thereby avoiding the lapsing of reservation after the passage of 24 months by operation of law. 16. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the present writ petition, on 08.08.2025, 2nd Revised Draft Development Plan of Mehkar City was again prepared by the Municipal Council by publishing a notice in Lokmat Newspaper, wherein the property of the petitioners is again reserved for Town Hall/Club and Library vide Reservation No.24. In the backdrop of the present scenario, the contention of respondent No.2 is that the right accrued to the petitioners due to the lapsing of reservation is taken away because of the 2nd Revised Draft Development Plan and, thus, there is automatic revival of the reservation due to such revision. The aforesaid issue, as raised by respondent No.2, is no more res integra as the aforesaid issue has been decided by this Court in the case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave and Others Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik and Others, reported in 2023 (2) Bom.CR 469. In the aforesaid case, this Court had framed issue specifically regarding effect of the Revised Development Plan and has answered it accordingly in following paragraphs: -8- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt “22. Question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the purchase notice issued by the petitioners subsequent to the date of the Draft Revised Development Plan for the city of Nashik would be a valid notice or not or the petitioners were required to again wait for expiry of 10 years from the date of the Draft Revised Development Plan for the city of Nashik and then issue a fresh notice and then if no steps would be taken by the respondents within the time prescribed, the reservation in respect of the writ land would lapse at that stage or not. 23. It is not in dispute that the writ land was shown for a public purpose in the development plan for Nashik prepared under Section 26 of the MRTP Act which came into effect on 16th November 1993 and came to be reserved for "Housing for Dishoused." The respondents did not take any steps to acquire the said plot for a period more than 10 years as contemplated under the provisions of the MRTP Act. The petitioners had admittedly issued a purchase notice on 14th July 2015. It is also not in dispute that in the Revised Draft Development Plan published in the Government Gazette on 4th June, 2015, the writ land once again is shown for public purpose. The purchase notice was issued however, on 14th July 2015. 37. In our view, the reservation of the writ land has lapsed upon the expiry of the period from service of the Purchase Notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The proposal bearing land acquisition Proposal No.16 of 2006 pending before the Collector, Nashik and or the sanction of the Draft Revised Development Plan as the new plan by Notification of 9th January 2017 and consequently the writ land shown under Reservation No.205 for public housing cannot be construed as steps taken as contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act. This Court in the case of Trilok Singh (supra) while adverting to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Shrirampur Municipal Council Vs. Satyabhambai Bhimaji Dawkher), 2013 (3) Bom.C.R. 481 (S.C.) : 2013 5 SCC 627 and also to its earlier judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (supra) has held that the steps towards acquisition can only be said to have commenced when the State Government takes -9- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt steps for acquisition of the particular piece of land, by the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 38. In the present case, the notification under Section 6, admittedly, has not been issued. The statutory notice viz. the Purchase Notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was issued on 14th July 2015 and it is evident that no steps as contemplated under Section 126(1)(c) read with Section 127 were taken before the expiry of the statutory period of 24 months. We are unable to agree with the submissions of Ms. Deshmukh on the application of the judgment of Prafulla C. Dave (supra) as it would deprive the petitioners of their statutory rights. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra) has held that the statutory right accrued to the owners cannot be taken away by an attempt to impose fresh reservation. We are also unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Patil that the publication of the Draft Revised Plan having been published prior to the issuance of the Purchase Notice and the same would have an effect of continuing the reservation on account of the same being sanctioned subsequently.” 17. Thus, this Court has held that the statutory right accrued to the owners cannot be taken away by an attempt to impose fresh reservation. The publication of 2nd Revised Draft Development Plan cannot be construed as steps taken as contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The steps towards such acquisition can only be said to have commenced when the State Government takes steps for acquisition of such land by publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. -10- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court, in Writ Petition No.6238/2024 (Vasantrao D. Salunke Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors) vide judgment dated 21.08.2024, observed as under: “7. It was further held that if no purchase notice is issued after 10 years and there is a revised plan under Section 38, which is published by the Authority, the land owner will then have to wait for 10 years and then issue a purchase notice, in the backdrop of there being no purchase notice in between the publication of the revised reservation and lapsing of 10 years. However, if the purchase notice is issued after lapsing of 10 years and prior to the publication of the revised plan, the revised plan would not neutralize the purchase notice.” 19. In the present case, ultimately, the provisions of Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act came into play and the reservation of the aforesaid land stood lapsed on 18.10.2024 by operation of law. Thus, the contention raised by respondent No.2 that the sanction of the 2nd Revised Draft Development Plan revived the aforesaid reservation, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 20. Thus, from the dates mentioned below, it is crystal clear that the statutory period contemplated under section 127 of the MRTP Act has lapsed. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that any steps for acquisition were taken by respondent No.2 so as to justify rejection of the petition. The relevant dates and events are as follows: Sr. No. Date Particulars 1. 03/04/2012 Revised Draft Development Plan of the City of Mehkar was published. -11- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt 2. 15/05/2012 The Final Development Plan was sanctioned and came into force, wherein the petitioners’ land was reserved for Town Hall, Community Centre, and Library under Reservation No.24. Even after passage of 10 from the date on which the Final Development Plan came into force, the petitioners’ land reserved for Town Hall/Community Centre, and Library was not acquired by agreement. 3. 19/10/2022 The petitioners issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. 4. 19/10/2022 Respondent No.2 received the purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. 5. 19/10/2022 to 18/10/2024 Even after the passage of twenty-four months from the date of service of the purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act., the petitioners’ land was neither acquired nor was any declaration under sub section (2) or sub section (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act published in the Official Gazette by the respondent Authorities. 21. As the period of ten years has lapsed from the date of publication of the Final Development Plan, and no steps for acquisition of the land have been taken, and further so, no steps were taken by respondent No.2 within a period of twenty four months from the date of the service of the purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP -12- 901.WP.7258.2024.J.odt Act, we have no option but to allow the present writ petition. Hence, we pass the following order: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) It is declared that the reservation of Town Hall, Community Centre, and Library vide Reservation No.24 affecting area admeasuring 1.00 H.R. of land bearing Survey No.76/2 of Village Mehkar, Taluka Mehkar and District Buldhana, has lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, and the petitioners are free to develop the aforesaid land in the manner permissible to the adjacent land as per Regional Development Plan. (iii) The respondent No.1 shall, within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the copy of this judgment, publish in the Official Gazette a notification of the lapsing of reservation under Section 127 sub section (2) of the MRTP Act, and declare that the reservation of Town Hall, Community Centre, and Library vide Reservation No.24 affecting area admeasuring 1.00 H.R. of land bearing Survey No.76/2 of Village Mehkar, Taluka Mehkar and District Buldhana, has lapsed. 22. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Vijaykumar