Bombay High Court
Rajesh Sampatlal Daga And Another vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secy., Urban ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:8017-DB
WP 5828-2024-J.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5828 OF 2024
1. Rajesh Sampatlal Daga,
Age- 53 years, Occ-Business,
R/o Near Jain Temple, Sarafa Line,
Chandrapur, Tq. & Dist.- Chandrapur,
Maharashtra - 442401.
2. Rahul Naresh Pugaliya,
Age- 57 years, Occ-Agriculturist & Business,
R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Chandrapur,
Tq. & Dist.- Chandrapur, Maharashtra ....PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra through
The Secretary, Urban Development
Department, State Of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Maharashtra Housing and
Area Development Authority (MHADA),
through its Chief Officer, Civil Line,
Temple Road, Raja-Rani Chowk,
Near Aamdar Nivas, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
WP 5828-2024-J.odt 2/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.K.Mundhada, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A.S.Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for respondent no. 1/State.
Shri P.P.Kothari, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 11/08/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 13/08/2025
JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Heard finally by consent of learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties.
2. The present petition is filed for declaration that,
the Reservation no. 10 affecting the land bearing Survey No.
44/1, total area admeasuring 2.58.50 HR, out of which, the
petitioners are owner of area admeasuring 0.81 H.R. of
Mouza Padoli, Tq. & Dist. Chandrapur for the reservations
Truck Terminals has lapsed under Section 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for
short, "the MRTP Act).
3. The petitioners are joint owners in possession and
person interested in the development of land bearing Survey
No. 44/1 at Mouza Padoli. The respondent no. 1 appointed
respondent no. 2 as the "Special Planning Authority" The
Regional Development Plan of Chandrapur-Ballarpur Region
was published by Urban Development Department on
30/06/1998 and came into force on 01/09/1998. In the said
plan, the land referred above was reserved for the purpose of
Truck Terminals vide Reservation no. 10. On 31/08/2008, ten
years had been lapsed from the date of coming into force the
development plan of Chandrapur. There was one notice
issued by the erstwhile owner on 01/10/2016 for de-
reserving the land. However, that was not under Section 127
of the MRTP Act. The then owner thereafter issued notice
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 28/02/2020 which was
received by the office on 02/03/2020. The notice was
accompanied with 7/12 extract, Talathi map and Part Plan.
On 13/11/2020, the then owner entered into an agreement to
sell with the petitioner no. 1. The statutory period of 24
months had been lapsed on 01/03/2022 after receipt of
purchase notice. As such, it is claimed that, the rights of
owner of the said land has been crystallized. The reservation
on the said land has lapsed due to operation of deeming
fiction and rights of the previous owner have been
crystallized prior to issuance of notice by the present
petitioners. On 04/05/2022, the petitioners issued notice
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act along with all relevant
documents and copy of agreement to sell in the capacity of
person interested. Thereafter, on 11/09/2023, the Sale Deed
came to be executed. After its execution, the petitioners
became joint owner and person interested in the development
of the said land.
4. The petition is vehemently opposed by the
learned counsel for the respondent(s) on the ground that, as
the petitioner no. 1 neither falls within the definition of
'owner' nor 'person interested' on the date of issuance of
notice, thus has no right to issue the notice. After entering
into an agreement to sell, it does not confer any right, title or
interest. The learned counsel relied on Section 43 of the MRTP
Act which states that, after the land is declared as reserved
under the Development Plan, no person is allowed to
institute or change the user of the land or carrying out the
development without permission of the planning authority.
The learned counsel has also raised objection on the
maintainability of the notice issued under Section 127 by the
previous owner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply
relied on the order/judgment in the case of Vyankatesh
Reality, Amravati V/s. the State of Maharashtra and others
in Writ Petition No. 1107/2014, dated 01/04/2015, wherein it is
held as under:-
"In the instant case, undisputedly, the notice was
issued by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner to
the respondent nos.2 and 3 on 22.02.2012, from lapse
of ten years after the coming into force of the revised
development plan. The notice was duly received by the
respondent nos.2 and 3 herein and admittedly the
respondent nos.2 and 3 have not issued a notification
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act within
the period of one year from the date of the notice. If
that is so, the provisions of Section 127 of the Act of
1966 would come into play and the reservation of the
property mentioned hereinabove for the Sports
Complex and Town Sub-Centre would lapse."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
placed reliance on Saket Vivek Mamidwar V/s. State of
Maharashtra {2024 LawSuit(Bom) 1615}, wherein, in para 8,
it is held as under:-
"8. So far as the objection in respect of notice by
erstwhile owner is concerned, the said issue is already
covered in Meena Mohanlal Chauhan Vs. Nashik
Municipal Corporation and others, 2015 2 MhLJ 315,
wherein it has been held that Section 127 of the MRTP
Act contemplates a purchase notice to be served by the
owner or any person interested in land, on a notice
given by the erstwhile owner, would accrue to the
benefit of the transferee."
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed
reliance on Meena Mohanlal Chauhanand V/s. Nashik
Municipal Corporation and others {(2015) 2 Mh.L.J. 315},
wherein, in para 13, it is held as under:-
"[13] The contention as raised on behalf of the 1st
respondent that the purchase notice in question was
served by the erstwhile owner and the same would not
enure to the benefit of the petitioner is misconceived.
Section 127 contemplates a purchase notice to be
served by the owner or any person interested in land.
The 1st respondent has not disputed that when the
purchase notice was served, Mr.Gangaram Gopala
More, was the owner of the land or a person interested
in the land. In fact, the 1st respondent entered into a
correspondence with the petitioner and sought further
details pertaining to the land including the Sale deed
as entered between the erstwhile owners and the
petitioner, which is clear from letters dated 26.11.2010
and 25.11.2010. The 1st respondent had not rejected
the purchase notice issued by the erstwhile owner Mr.
Gangaram Gopala More. However, only when the
petitioner presented plans for development of the land,
the 1st respondent issued the Impugned
communication dated 21.2.2012 informing that the
reservation continues and hence the development
permission cannot be granted. Taking into
consideration this factual position, there is no
substance in the contentions as raised on behalf of the
1st respondent that the purchase notice issued by
Mr.Gangaram Gopala More would not enure to the
benefit of the petitioner. In any case, this contention as
raised on behalf of the 1st respondent has no legal basis
when considered in the context of the clear language of
the provisions of section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act."
8. Admittedly, there is no acquisition after purchase
notice was issued to the respondent(s). Merely, sending
proposal without depositing the initial payment would not
suffice. As such, in view of deeming fiction under Section 127
the MRTP Act, the reservation is lapsed. Accordingly, we
pass the following order:-
ORDER
1) The petition is allowed.
2) It is declared that, the land of the petitioners which was
reserved for the purpose of Truck Terminals vide Reservation
no. 10 in Survey No. 44/1, admeasuring 0.81 HR of Mouza
Padoli, Tah. & District Chandrapur has been lapsed.
3) The land under Reservation no. 10 in Survey No. 44/1,
admeasuring 0.81 HR of Mouza Padola, belonging to the
petitioners is hereby released from reservation.
4) The respondent no. 1 to issue notification of
dereservation of the aforesaid land within a period of three
months.
5) Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
B.T.Khapekar
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/08/2025 18:18:33
