The Bombay High Court has clarified that for the purposes of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, “steps towards acquisition” mean only such steps that result in the actual commencement of acquisition proceedings in law, namely publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act or Section 19 of the 2013 Act. Unless such a declaration is issued within the statutory period after service of the purchase notice, reservation lapses by operation of law. Administrative actions such as seeking measurements, identifying discrepancies, issuing letters, or processing the proposal do not amount to legally recognised steps sufficient to save the reservation.
The High Court therefore declared that Reservation No. 378 in respect of the petitioners’ land had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, with the consequence that the land stood freed from reservation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the legal position on Section 127 of the MRTP Act is already settled and made it clear that authorities cannot defeat landowners’ statutory rights by relying on incomplete or merely administrative steps. The Court noted that earlier Division Bench judgments had already clarified that acquisition can be said to have commenced only when the State Government accepts the proposal and a declaration is published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court found that neither the municipal corporation nor the State disclosed issuance of any declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act within the prescribed period, even if the Covid-19 exclusion argument of the respondents was considered.
The Bench further observed that under the scheme of Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act, authorities get an initial ten-year period and then a further 24 months after service of a purchase notice to either acquire the land or take legally recognised steps towards acquisition. Mere internal movement of files, correspondence, measurements, or requests to proceed with acquisition are not enough. The Bench emphasised that land cannot remain locked under reservation indefinitely; if the land is not acquired within the statutory framework, the owner must be free to use it as permitted by town planning law.
Briefly, the petitioners, owners of Survey No. 117/4 at Village Sangmeshwar, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik, challenged the continued reservation of their land for a burial ground under Reservation No. 378 in the development plan sanctioned on 15 September 2006. They contended that although more than 15 years had passed, the authorities did not acquire the land. The petitioners served a purchase notice on 19 November 2018, forwarded copies to the concerned authorities, and then issued a second purchase notice on 5 December 2018 when no response was received. The municipal corporation later asked for title and land measurement documents, which were supplied on 20 December 2018. According to the petitioners, the statutory 24-month period under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 expired on 19 November 2020, but no acquisition was completed and no declaration of lapsing was issued.
