Bombay High Court
Shakuntala Ranganath Lohapatre And Anr vs Pune Municipal Corporation And Ors on 5 March, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:10332-DB
24-aswp-11182-2023.doc
apn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11182 OF 2023
1. Shakuntala Ranganath Lohapatre ]
2. Dinesh Ranganath Lohapatre ]
Both residing at 268, Shukrawar ]
Peth, Pune-411 002. ] ...Petitioners
V/s.
1. Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005. ]
2. Commissioner, Pune Municipal ]
Corporation, Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune-411 005. ]
3. Executive Engineer, TDR, ]
Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005. ]
4. Sub-Engineer, Office of Property ]
Management, Pune Municipal ]
Corporation, Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune-411 005.
5. Sub-Engineer, Construction ]
Development Department Zone-2 ]
Swatantryaveer Sawarkar Udyog ]
Bhavan, Pune Municipal Corporation ]
Pune-411 005. ]
6. State of Maharashtra, Land and ]
Revenue Department, Mantralay, ]
Mumbai. ] ...Respondents
______________________________________
Ms. Aparna Devkar for the Petitioners.
ASHWINI H Ms. Manisha Jagtap for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
GAJAKOSH
Digitally signed by
Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent No.6-State.
ASHWINI
GAJAKOSH
Date: 2025.03.05
_____________________________________________
15:23:50 +0530
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2025 22:36:39 :::
24-aswp-11182-2023.doc
CORAM :
A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th February, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 5th March, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Kamal Khata, J) :
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to declare that the
reservation of Playground bearing No. PG-32 shown in respect of the
Petitioner's land located at Village Ambegaon, Budruk, Taluka-Haveli,
District-Pune bearing Survey No.34/3/5/2 admeasuring 00H-05R
has lapsed, as no steps to acquire the same have been taken by the
Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for a period of more than 10
years since the date of the Notification dated 2nd/5th March, 2012 and
even six months after the purchase notice dated 2 nd November, 2022
as per the mandate of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966 ('MRTP'). Additionally, it seeks a Writ of
Mandamus directing the Respondents to notify and declare that the
subject land is available to the Petitioner for development.
2) Ms. Devkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner states that
the purchase notice contemplated under section 127(1) was issued
on 2nd November 2022. The six months mandated period lapsed on
2nd May, 2023 and this Petition was filed on 5th July, 2023. She argues
that, in this case, the period of six months as per the old Section
127(1) of MRTP Act would apply since reservation was
24-aswp-11182-2023.doc
effected/sanctioned on 2nd March 2012. In support of her contention,
she relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Shankar
Newandram Budhwani V/s. The Chief Officer and Ors. reported in
2025:BHC-AS:4999-DB. She therefore submitted that this Petition be
made absolute as prayed.
3) Per Contra Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5
submitted that the Petition is premature. She contended that after
receiving the notice dated 2nd November, 2022 the Corporation has
passed a resolution bearing No.125 dated 30 th September, 2024 and
has thereby initiated the process of acquisition of the property within
the statutory period of limitation. Following the Resolution of
Corporation, the Department of Land Acquisition of PMC had sent
proposal dated 30th January 2025 to the District Collector to acquire
the said property. She argued that the Petition was premature as the
period of 24 months after purchase notice would lapse only on 2 nd
November 2024. She therefore submitted that the Petition is devoid
of any merit and ought to be dismissed.
4) Having heard both Advocates we perused the relevant
sections and the entire proceedings produced before us.
5) A bare reading of the Section 127 of the MRTP Act reveals
that the period "twelve months" was substituted by "twenty-four
months" by Notification No. Mah. 42 of 2015, s.7, with effect from
29th August 2015.
24-aswp-11182-2023.doc
6) We are unable to accept the Ms Devkar's argument that
since the draft Development Plan that was partly sanctioned on
2nd/5th March 2012, the provisions of old section would apply and
thus the period of six months as was then applicable would apply.
Her reliance on the Notification dated 2 nd March, 2012 in support of
her contention is misplaced because the Act was amended with effect
from 29th August, 2015 increasing the period from 6 months to 12
months and then to 24 months.
7) In our view once the Act is amended, reliance on a
Notification prior to the amendment cannot be considered.
Consequently, the amended period prescribed on the date of issuance
of notice i.e. on 2 nd November 2022, which is "24 months" as stated
in Section 127 (1) of the MRTP Act, will apply and not the date on
which the land was reserved by Notification dated 5 th March, 2012.
The reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri
Shankar Newandram Budhwani (supra) as well as the Notification of
2nd March 2012 is both misplaced and misconstrued and thus
rejected.
8) Thus, in our view the Petition is premature and is
accordingly dismissed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
