908-WP-11370-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11370 OF 2025 Sachin Janardan Daivadnya And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation Thr Administrator Commissioner And Ors. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Tejpal Ingale a/w Mr. Aryan Sawant, for the Petitioner. Mr. R. P. Kadam, “B” Panel counsel for the Respondent-State. Mr. Aditya Raktade, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : AUGUST 27, 2026 P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the Petitioners seek a declaration of lapsing of reservation in respect of the Petitioner's land bearing Revision Survey No. 689/A/3 admeasuring about 2,000 square meters, situated at Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur, reserved for a high school and playground in the sanctioned Development Plan (“D.P.”) (revised) of Ichalkaranji City. 2. Briefly stated, the facts as set out in the Petition are that on 25th May, 1981, in the sanctioned D.P., which came into force on 1st August, 1981, the Petitioner's land was reserved for a high school and Arya Chavan 1 of 7 2026:BHC-KOL:8149-DB 908-WP-11370-2025.doc playground as Reservation Site No. I/10. In the revised D.P. of Ichalkaranji City, sanctioned on 24th May, 2012, the reservation of the Petitioner's land continued. On 10th July, 2022, the period of 10 years from the sanction of D.P. expired, however, no steps were taken to acquire and utilize the land by Respondent No. 1-Corporation for the public purpose. On 5th June, 2023, a purchase notice was served by the Petitioner under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “MRTP Act”) to acquire the land within the statutory period of two years. By notification under Section 26 of the MRTP Act dated 15th February, 2024, a revision of the D.P. was undertaken in which the Petitioner's land was put under a proposed reservation for playground partially and proposed 24 feet wide D.P. road. Despite the expiry of period of 24 months, no steps were taken to acquire the land under reservation. Hence, the present Petition came to be filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that considering the timelines, the reservation has lapsed as despite the service of the purchase notice of 5th June, 2023, no steps were taken for acquisition of the land under reservation. He would submit that it is well settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mills(P) Ltd. And Others1, and also by this 1 2003 (2) SCC 11 Arya Chavan 2 of 7 908-WP-11370-2025.doc Court in Baburao Dhondiba Salokhe vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, Kolhapur And Others2 that once the reservation of land under sanctioned D.P. is deemed to have lapsed by reason of non- acquisition within the statutory period, the reservation which is deemed to have lapsed cannot be taken away by putting the land under reservation once again in revised D.P. He would submit that therefore, the subsequent proposed reservation in the revision of the D.P. would not come in the way of the development by the Petitioner of the subject land. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation would submit that it is specifically pleaded in the affidavit-in-reply of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that the purchase notice was not received by the Commissioner nor by the Town Planning Department. He submits that as the service of purchase notice itself is disputed, resultantly the period of 24 months did not commence, and there is no lapsing of reservation. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Petitioner would point out page 49 of the Petition, which is a document annexed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 themselves, which is the inward register of Ichalkaranji Nagar Parishad reflecting inward no. 4702 in respect of the purchase notice issued by the Petitioner. He would submit that in view 2 2003 (3) Mh.L.J 820 Arya Chavan 3 of 7 908-WP-11370-2025.doc of Respondent’s inward register, there is no question of any dispute about receipt of the purchase notice. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. In so far as the reservation in the sanctioned D.P., which was initially in the year 1981, and the revised D.P. of Ichalkaranji City, sanctioned on 24th May, 2012, in which the Petitioner's land was reserved for the purpose of high school and playground, is not in dispute. The only issue required to be considered is whether there is lapsing of reservation. 8. Section 127 of the MRTP Act reads as under : “127. Lapsing of reservations. - [(1)] [Re-numbered by Maharashtra 16 of 2009 Section 2.] If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final Regional plan, or final Development plan comes into force [or, if a declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of section 126 is not published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice, alongwith the documents showing his title or interest in the said land, on the Planning Authority, the Development Authority or, as the case may be, the Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if within twelve months] [This portion substituted by Maharashtra 16 of 2009, Section 2 (a).] from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. (2)[ On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any land under sub-section (1), the Government shall notify the same, by an order published in the Official Gazette.] [Sub-section (2) is added by Maharashtra 16 of 2009, Section 2(b).]” Arya Chavan 4 of 7 908-WP-11370-2025.doc 9. The statutory provisions make it clear that if any land reserved in any plan under the enactment, is not acquired within a period of 10 years from the date on which the final Regional Plan or final Development Plan comes into force, then in such case, in event if purchase notice is served by the owner or any person interested in the land, and if within a period of 24 months, the land is not acquired or no steps of acquisition are commenced, the resolution is deemed to have been lapsed. In the present case, the period of 10 years undisputedly expired on 10th July, 2022. 10. The purchase notice is served on 5th June, 2023 calling upon the Respondents to acquire land within a period of two years. Though, a dispute is sought to be raised that the notice was not received by the Commissioner nor by the Town Planning Department, paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-reply of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admits that the notice was inwarded in the Baranishi (Inward) Section of the Corporation under inward no. 4702. In view of the Respondent’s own pleading in the affidavit, it is evident that the purchase notice was duly served upon the Corporation, and whether it is received by the Commissioner or not is an internal issue of the Corporation. The Respondent-Corporation cannot deny the receipt of the purchase notice and period of two years would commence from 5th June, 2023. Admittedly, the period of 24 months has lapsed without any steps of acquisition being taken of the reserved Arya Chavan 5 of 7 908-WP-11370-2025.doc land. The reservation to the Petitioner's land is deemed to have lapsed, and the land has now become available for the purpose of development, as permissible in case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is also right in contending that once a reservation is deemed to have been lapsed, because of the land not being acquired for the purpose within the statutory period, then the right which accrues to the owner cannot be taken away by putting the land again under reservation in the revised D.P. 12. In light of the settled position in law, the proposed reservation of playground and proposed 24 feet wide D.P. road by virtue of notification under Section 26 of the MRTP Act will not affect the lapsed reservation and the right which has accrued to the Petitioner to utilize the land for development as permissible. 13. In light of the above, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b)(i)(ii) which reads as under : b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature of Article-226 of the Constitution of India; (i) to hold and/or declare that reservation in respect of Petitioners' land bearing Revision Survey No. 689/A/3 admeasuring about 2000 sq. mtrs. situated at Ichalkaranji Dist. Kolhapur reserved being Reservation Site No. I/10 for "High School and Play Ground" in sanctioned Development Plan (Revised) of Ichalkaranji City, has lapsed under the provisions of Section- 127 of the said M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 and that the said land is available to the Petitioners / Owners for the purpose of development or otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant Development Plan. (ii) The Respondent No. 3 State of Maharashtra the Urban Development Department be kindly directed to issue necessary Notification forthwith as required u/s. 127(2) of MRTP Act, 1966 that the reservation, allocation, Arya Chavan 6 of 7 908-WP-11370-2025.doc designation bearing Reservation Site no. I/10 for the purpose of "High School and Playground" on the Petitioners land bearing Survey No. 689/A/3 of which City Survey No. 9718 at Ichalkaranji Dist. Kolhapur within Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation admeasuring about 2000 sq. mtrs. in sanctioned D. P. of Ichalkaranji City (revised) has deemed to have lapsed and available to the Petitioners for development as permissible under the law. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 7 of 7