The Bombay High Court has held that where land reserved in a development plan is not acquired within the statutory period and the owner serves a valid purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation lapses by operation of law if, within six months from service of such notice, the planning authority neither acquires the land nor commences legally sufficient steps for acquisition. The Court also clarified that a notice does not become invalid merely because it is composite or because the authority later disputes internal receipt, when the record shows that the notice was in fact received, understood as a Section 127 notice, and acted upon by the planning authority.
The Court accordingly declared that the reservation over the subject land had lapsed in view of the valid purchase notice under Section 127 and held that the petitioner cooperative society is entitled to utilise the land and apply for development permission in accordance with applicable law. Consequently, nothing survived in the connected challenge to the subsequent re-designation in the later development plan.
The Division Bench comprising Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice S. M. Modak observed that the Pune Municipal Corporation’s stand that the purchase notice was never received was untenable, in light of the acknowledgment on record and the RTI responses and internal correspondence clearly showing that the notice dated September 18, 2001 was received by the Corporation on September 26, 2001 and was acted upon. The Bench observed that once there was ample material to demonstrate due service, the Corporation could not fairly contend that the notice was never received, was not valid, or was not traceable in its office.
The Bench further rejected the contention that the notice was not served on the appropriate authority. It observed that the notice was addressed to the Municipal Commissioner, received by the Corporation’s reception, and thereafter forwarded internally for further action, following which the Corporation itself initiated acquisition steps. In these circumstances, the objection that the notice was not served on the planning authority was held to be untenable.
On the objection that the notice was a composite notice under Sections 37 and 127 and therefore invalid, the Bench held that so long as the requirements of a valid notice under Section 127 were satisfied, it was of no consequence that the notice was composite. The Court expressly observed that Section 127 does not prohibit issuance of a composite notice, particularly where the Corporation clearly understood it as a notice under Section 127 and proceeded on that basis.
The Bench also rejected the plea regarding defective service under Section 136 of the MRTP Act and the objection of delay and laches. It observed that once a valid purchase notice had been served and no steps for acquisition were taken within six months as required by Section 127, the reservation lapsed by operation of law, and the lawful owner could not be deprived of that consequence merely because the petition was filed later, especially when the Corporation had in the meantime started but not concluded acquisition proceedings.
Briefly, the petitioner co-operative housing society has sought a declaration that reservation over land bearing Survey Nos. 39/1 and 40/1 at Village Karvenagar, Pune, reserved for High School (HS-15), had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, on account of failure of the planning authority to take acquisition steps within six months of service of the purchase notice dated September 18, 2001, which was received on September 26, 2001. During pendency of the petition, the 2013 development plan changed the reservation from HS-15 to PG-34 (Playground), which was separately challenged on the ground that once reservation had lapsed, subsequent re-designation was a nullity.
The land had originally been reserved in the first development plan declared on August 15, 1966, and continued to remain reserved for High School in the second development plan sanctioned on January 05, 1987. The petitioner acquired the subject land under a registered sale deed on August 02, 2000, and thereafter issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on September 18, 2001. The petitioner relied on acknowledgment and RTI correspondence showing receipt of the notice by the Pune Municipal Corporation on September 26, 2001 and forwarding to the City Engineer Office for further action.
Although the Corporation later passed resolutions and undertook certain acquisition-related steps, including Standing Committee Resolution No. 470 dated July 02, 2002, Resolution No. 1593 dated March 10, 2005, Form B proposal dated November 10, 2005, agreement for acquisition dated June 05, 2007, and appointment of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on July 30, 2007, all these steps were taken after expiry of six months from service of the purchase notice. The Corporation however, resisted the petition on the grounds that the notice was not traceable, was not a valid Section 127 notice, was not served on the appropriate authority, and that the petition suffered from delay and laches.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Surel Shah, along with Advocates Amey Deshpande, Ganesh Misal, Rohit Chavan, Sunil Dude, Sandesh Darade, Venkatesh Shinde, and Vishal Kale, for the Petitioners
Advocates Neha S. Bhide, G. R. Raghuwanshi, O. A. Chandurkar, and Tanu N. Bhatia, for the Respondent/ State
Advocates Abhijit P. Kulkarni and Sweta Shah, for the Respondent/ BMC
