[Cites 27, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Atmaram Baburao Shendkar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru. Udd And ... on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2026:BHC-AS:17598-DB
Digitally signed
by GAURI
GAURI AMIT
GAEKWAD
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2026.04.15
11:41:13
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7963 OF 2025
1. Atmaram Baburao Shendkar
Age:- 64 years, Occu:- Farmer
Residing A/P Chambali Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
2. Sopan Baburao Shendkar
Age:- 68 years, Occu:- Farmer
Residing A/P Chambali. Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
3. Balu Mansingh Kanse
Age:- 64 years, Occu:-Retired School Teacher
Residing A/P. Jejuri, Near Lavathaleshwar Temple,
Tal. Purandar. Dist. Pune - 412 303
4. Minakshi Baban Katkar
Age:- 62 years, Occu:-Retired School Teacher
Residing A/P Saswad, Swami Samarth Society,
Plot no. 16, Saswad, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
5. Namrata Avinash Kuchekar
Age:- 41 years, Occu:-School Teacher
Residing A/P Alande, Tal. Bhor,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Alande,
Dist. Pune - 412 205
6. Nandkishore Baburao Memane
Age:- 45 years, Occu:-Private Service.
Residing at. Flat No. 13, Jyoti Complex,
Taradatta Purve, A/P Saswad, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
7. Jalindar Gulab Ghate
Age:- 57 years, Occu:- School Teacher
Residing A/P Kolwihare, Jejuri,
Tal. Purandar,Dist. Pune - 412 306
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:36:18 :::
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
8. Rekha Subhash Mohite
Age:- 57 years, Occu:-Housewife, Farmer
Residing at Near Hanuman Mandir, Bajrangwadi,
Tal. Baramati, Dist. Pune - 412 103
9. Pushpa Santoshkumar Jagtap
Age:- 45 years, Occu:-
Residing at Vinayak Housing Society,
Survey No. 5A/1/4/2, Saswad, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
10. Seema Popatrao Takawale
Age:- 49 years., Occu:-
Residing A/P Jejuri, Dhalewadi Road,
Tal. Purandar Dist. Pune - 412 303
11. Sambhaji Appa Khore
Age:- 45 years, Occu:- Primary School Teacher
Residing at Khore Wasti, Baburdi,
Tal. Baramati, Dist. Pune 412 204
12. Baburao Sitaram Memane
Deceased hence through legal heirs
A. Digambar Baburao Memane
Age:-42 years, Occu:- SRPF Police
Residing at Flat No. 13, Jyoti Complex,
Taradatta Purve Society, A/P Saswad,
Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune - 412 301
B. Laxmi Baburao Memane
Age:- 65 years, Occu:-Household
Residing A/P Jogawadi, Tal. Baramati,
Dist. Pune - 412 303
C.Vaishali Sandeep Yadav
Age:- 40 years, Occu:- Housewife
Residing A/P Kolwihare, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 306
13. Santoshkumar Anatrao Jagtap
Age:- 45 years, Occu:- Doctor
Residing at Vinayak Housing Society,
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:36:18 :::
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
Survey no. 5A/1/4/2, Saswad,
Tal. Purandar Dist. Pune - 412 301
14. Vilas Sudam Ghate
Age:- 45 years, Occu:-Service
Residing A/P Kolwihare, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 306
15. Sanjay Bajirao Jagtap
Age:- 58 years, Occu:-Business
Residing at Near Old Post office, Saswad,
Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune - 412 301
16. Manisha Mahesh Pawar
Age:- 53 Years,, Occu:-Advocate
Residing at B-179/3,
Government Colony, Bandra East
Bandra, Mumbai 400051
17. Tushar Dilip Zagade
Age:- 35 years, Occu:- Business
Residing A/P Kolwihare,
Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune - 412 306
18. Shrikant Ashok Wadhane
Age:- 41 years, Occu:-Police
Residing A/P Saswad, Near Uttam Dhaba,
Aai Bungalow, Purandar Park, Saswad,
Tal. Purandar, Dist Pune - 412 301
19. Chaya Ashok Kolate
Age:- 60 years, Occu:-Housewife
Residing at Near Corporation School,
Survey No. 165, Janata Vashat,
Malwadi Hadapsar, Pune 411 028
20. Ravindra Tukaram Kamble
Age:- 48 years, Occu:-Service
Residing at 252, Pimpale Gavathan,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Ashok Nagar,
Pimpale, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune - 412 301
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:36:18 :::
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
21. Subhash Shankarrao Mohite
Age:- 66 years, Occu:- Farmer
Residing A/P Bajrangwadi, Late,
Tal. Baramati, Dist Pune. 412 103
22. Mangal Shamrao Badadhe
Age:- 61 years, Occu:-Housewife
Residing A/P Kodit, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
23. Rahul Shyamrao Badadhe
Age:- 39 years, Occu:-Military Service
Residing A/P Kodit, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
24. Ratan Shyamrao Badadhe
Age:- 37 years, Occu:-Retired Military Officer
Residing A/P Kodit, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
25. Dashrath Dhondiba Mhaske
Age:- 70 years, Occu:-Retired Military Officer
Residing at Plot no. 47, Trishul Housing Society,
Saswad, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune - 412 301
26. Tanaji Dadoba Lole
Age:- 68 years, Occu:-Retired
Residing at Near Police Station, Charkop Sector 2,
Kandivali West, Mumbai - 400 067
27. Sunil Shankarao Landge
(Deceased through legal heirs)
A. Prathamesh Sunil Landge
Age:- 34 years, Occu:- Business
Residing at Landge Complex, Main road,
Amar chowk, Saswad, Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301
B. Shounak Sunil Landge
Age:- 29 years, Occu:- Business
Residing at Landge Complex, Main road,
Amar Chowk, Saswad, Tal. Purandar,
Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:36:18 :::
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
Dist. Pune - 412 301
C. Manisha Sunil Landge
Age - 67 years, Occup - Housewife
Residing at Landge Complex, Main road,
Amar Chowk, Saswad. Tal. Purandar,
Dist. Pune - 412 301 ....Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
By and though its
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya-Mumbai-01
2. Saswad Municipal Council
By and through its Chief Officer
Office at Saswad, Tal:-Purandar,
District:-Pune 415 110
[email protected]
3. Town Planning and Valuation Department
By and through its Director
Having office at Ground Floor,
Central Building, Pune-411001
[email protected]
4.Town Planning and Valuation Department
Baramati Division, Baramati
By and through its Director
Having office at Main Building,
Administrative Bhavan, Third Floor
Baramati, District Pune-413102
(For Respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 the
Copy to be served upon the A.G.P.,
Writ (Cell), High Court, Mumbai) ....Respondents
----
Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni i/b. Mr. Sarthak S. Diwan and Ms. Rupa J.
Singh for the Petitioners.
Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye a/w. Ms. Gauri Velankar for Respondent
No.2.
----
Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 37
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:36:18 :::
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 10th APRIL, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. The oral submissions of the learned Advocates
Mr. Kulkarni on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. Aradhye on behalf of
Respondent No.2 and the learned AGP on behalf of the State, were
heard on 7th April, 2026, 8th April, 2026 and 9th April, 2026. Due to
paucity of time, this matter was listed today for dictation of
judgment.
3. The dates and sequence of events in the matter
concerning lapsing of reservation, are relevant. Hence, we are
summarizing the same as under :
(a) The first development plan of the Respondent
- Saswad Municipal Council (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Council') was sanctioned on
29th December, 1988 which came into effect on
15th May, 1989. The reservation was for 'Primary
School and Play Ground'.
(b) On 27th May, 2003, the Municipal Council
passed a resolution declaring that the land is not
Gauri Gaekwad 6 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
required by the Council and it was decided to
communicate to the Urban Development
Department that the Council does not require the
said land.
(c) The Council once again wrote to the Town
Planning Department on 30th December, 2005
reiterating that the land is not required.
(d) The Predecessor in title issued a purchase
notice dated 19th June, 2006 under Section 127 of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTP Act'). A
photostat copy of the said purchase notice bearing
inward stamp of the Saswad Municipal Council
dated 19th June, 2006 (2 pages) is tendered across
the bar. The same is taken on record and marked
as 'X' for identification. The six months period
lapsed on 19th December, 2006.
(e) As the law stood then, the timeline for the
lapsing of reservation and for the accrual of rights
to the owner or person having an interest in the
property, was six months. This timeline was
amended and extended to one year in 2015, and is
now two years pursuant to the amendment made
in 2021.
(f) The present Petitioners purchased the Writ land
in 2011.
(g) The second revised development plan was
sanctioned and published on 23rd June, 2017,
indicating the same reservation for 'Primary
School and Playground'.
(h) The second revised development plan was
sanctioned after 19th December, 2006, i.e., upon
the lapse of ten years and six months, by which
time the reservation had already deemed to have
lapsed.
(i) Some of the Petitioners approached the
Council by making an application on 25th June,
Gauri Gaekwad 7 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
2019 seeking development permission, which
came to be rejected on 3rd March, 2020.
(j) The Petitioners issued a purchase notice under
Section 49 of the MRTP Act on 2nd August, 2021.
(k) The Council, by its communication dated
8th October, 2021, called upon the Petitioners to
submit documents in support of their claim.
(l) On 13th October, 2021, the Respondent Council
called upon the Petitioners to remain present for a
hearing scheduled on 21st October, 2021.
(m) Respondent No.3 conducted the hearing on
21st October, 2021 and rejected the purchase
notice on the ground of non-submission of certain
documents.
(n) The Petitioners again issued a purchase notice
under Section 49 of the MRTP Act on
18th August, 2022.
(o) Respondent No.4 submitted its detailed report
to Respondent No.3 on 23rd November, 2022.
(p) The Council submitted its report dated
8th December, 2022 to Respondent No.3,
recommending not to confirm the purchase notice.
(q) The Council forwarded a proposal to the
District Collector for acquisition of the Suit
property on 24th January, 2023.
(r) Respondent No.3, by order dated 9th February,
2023, confirmed the purchase notice dated
18th August, 2022.
(s) On 6th March, 2023, Respondent No.3
addressed a communication to the Council
informing it of the confirmation of the purchase
notice and calling upon it to submit a proposal for
acquisition within the prescribed period of one
year under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act.
Gauri Gaekwad 8 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
(t) However, between 6th March, 2023 and the
filing of this Petition on 3rd May, 2025, and even
as of today, the Council has not taken any steps
for acquisition of the land under reservation.
4. The issue before us is, as to what would be the fate of
the revised development plan dated 23rd June, 2017, due to the
lapsing of the reservation pursuant to the purchase notice dated
19th June, 2006 issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, upon the
expiry of the six months period on 19th December, 2006?
5. For clarity and ready reference, we are reproducing
Section 127 of the MRTP Act, as it stood in 2006, hereunder :
127. Lapsing of reservations. - 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
proceedings for the acquisition of such land under
this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
are not commenced within such period, the owner
or any person interested in the land may serve
notice on the Planning Authority, Development
Authority or as the case may be, Appropriate
Authority to that effect; and if within six months
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 reservation, allotment or
designation and shall become available to the
Gauri Gaekwad 9 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
owner for the purpose of Development as
otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land
under the relevant plan.
6. The learned Advocates Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Aradhye
have vehemently canvassed their grounds and contentions.
Mr. Kulkarni has cited the following judgments :
(i) Chhabildas v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1
(ii) Prafulla C. Dave and Ors. v/s. Municipal
Commissioner and Ors.2
(iii) Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.
v/s. Vasant Mahadev Patil (dead) and Ors.3
(iv) Hasina Kudbuddin Shaikh and Ors. v/s.
Karad Municipal Council and Ors.4
7. Mr. Aradhye has cited the following judgment :
Shrichand Girdharilal Punjabi v/s. Municipal
Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.5
8. Having gone through the cited reports, we find that,
except Chhabildas (supra), Hasina Kudbuddin Shaikh (supra) and
Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (supra), the other judgments are
distinguishable on facts and do not relate to the issue raised before
1 (2018) 2 SCC 784
2 (2015) 11 SCC 90
3 (2022) 5 SCC 758
4 (2019) 1 Mh. L.J. 126
5 (2008) 5 Mh. L.J. 397
Gauri Gaekwad 10 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
us. We are, therefore, adverting to the above three reports, in details.
9. In Chhabildas (supra), the issue pertaining to a
purchase notice under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act was dealt
with. The facts of the case in Chhabildas (supra) are set out in
paragraph nos.2 to 6 of the said judgment, which read as under :
"2. On 11-2-2002, the Development Plan of
Jalgaon City was sanctioned by the State
Government. The appellant's land bearing Gut No.
37/1 adm. 42-R, situated at Mauje Pimprala, was
reserved for primary school and playground.
3. On 7-5-2007, the appellant issued a
purchase notice under Section 49(1) (e) of the Act
stating that as their land was reserved for the
aforesaid purposes. the owner was unable to sell
it, except at a price lower than that at which it
could reasonably be expected to sell, if it was not
so designated.
4. On 12-12-2007, the State Government
confirmed the aforesaid purchase notice and
stated that proceedings for acquisition of land
shall be initiated within one year i.e. before 12-
12-2008 as per Section 49(7) of the Act.
5. Within the aforesaid period, the
Commissioner, Jalgaon, submitted a proposal for
acquisition of the aforesaid land to the Collector,
Jalgaon on 26-9-2008. This was followed
by a letter dated 28-1-2009 issued by the
Collector, appointing the SDO, Jalgaon, to
complete the acquisition process as laid down by
the Act. Since nothing further transpired, the
owner of the land wrote a letter to the
Commissioner, Jalgaon on 15-1-2014, stating that
since no action has taken place in furtherance of
Gauri Gaekwad 11 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
the acquisition proposal. the said proposal has
lapsed and that, therefore, the land should be
returned to the owner. On 28-3-2014, the
Assistant Director, Town Planning, Jalgaon
Municipal Corporation, wrote back to the owner
stating that the land acquisition proposal by the
Municipal Corporation "is in process" and stated
that, as Section 49(7) was satisfied on the facts of
the present case, there was no lapse. A writ
petition dated 2-5-2014 was then filed by the
owner before the Aurangabad Bench of the
Bombay High Court, which came to be dismissed
by the impugned judgment dated 5-12-20142,
stating that Section 127 of the Act alone deals
with lapsing of reservation, and that as the
purchase notice was issued under Section 49, the
said section would apply only when a person
needs to develop his land immediately. In the
present case, the appellant failed to make out any
such urgent need and since the Municipal
Corporation had already moved the State
Government for acquisition of the appellant's
land, the writ petition was dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant before us has taken us through the
aforestated provisions of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and has
argued that after the appropriate authority makes
an application to acquire the land consequent
upon the purchase notice issued under Section 49,
either the land ought to be acquired within a
reasonable time therefrom or should be released
from the designation in the development plan as
per Section 50 of the Act. The impugned
judgment was wholly incorrect in stating that
there was no urgent need. Besides, Section 49
applies to the purchase notice at hand, inasmuch
as it is clear that the owner is unable to sell the
land, thanks to the reservation made. This being
the case, over 10 years having lapsed since the
date of the purchase notice, the owner's land
should be declared to be free of the designation
Gauri Gaekwad 12 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
set out in the development plan.
10. It was canvassed in Chhabildas (supra), on behalf of the
Government, that the schemes under Sections 49 and 127 are
distinct, and that no lapsing can take place under Section 49 of the
MRTP Act, once Section 49(7) stands satisfied, since the owner has
not issued any fresh purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP
Act. It was, therefore, argued that no lapsing can be said to have
taken place.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the effect of
Section 49 of the MRTP Act in paragraph nos.8 to 18 of Chhabildas
(supra), which read thus :
8. The scheme of Section 49 of the MRTP
Act is to lay down timelines within which the
appropriate authority must make an application to
acquire the land in respect of which a purchase
notice has been confirmed. The moment any of
the conditions specified in sub-section (1) are met,
the owner or person affected may serve on the
State Government, within the time and manner
prescribed by the Regulations, a purchase notice
requiring the appropriate authority to purchase the
interest in the land in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
9. On the receipt of the purchase notice as
per sub-section (3), the State Government is to
forthwith call from the planning authority or the
appropriate authority such report or records as
Gauri Gaekwad 13 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
may be necessary, which the authority shall then
forward to the State Government as soon as
possible but not later than 30 days from the date
of acquisition.
10. In sub-section (4), if the State
Government is satisfied that the conditions
specified in sub-section (1) are fulfilled, it may
either confirm the purchase notice; refuse to
confirm the purchase notice; or direct that
planning permission be granted with or without
conditions. Under sub-section (5), if the steps
contemplated after service of purchase notice
leads to a situation where the State Government
does not pass any orders thereon, the notice shall
be deemed to have been confirmed at the
expiration of that period. And finally, under sub-
section (7), if within one year from the date of
confirmation of purchase notice, the appropriate
authority fails to make an application to acquire
the land in respect of which the purchase notice
has been confirmed, the reservation, designation,
allotment, indication or restriction on
development of the land shall be deemed to have
lapsed. Section 49(6), which was deleted by
Maharashtra Act 6 of 1976, read as follows :
49. (6) Upon confirmation of the notice, the
State Government shall proceed to acquire
the land or that part of any land regarding
which the notice has been confirmed, within
one year of the confirmation of the purchase
notice, in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter VII.
It is clear that, under this provision, if within one
year from the confirmation of the purchase notice,
the State Government did not acquire the land,
then the consequence would be that the
acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. This
was a salutary provision, but seems to have been
deleted so that Section 49 cases are brought on a
par with Section 126 cases.
Gauri Gaekwad 14 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
11. The object of Section 49 is thus clear that
once a purchase notice is received by the
authorities, there arises, as the marginal note to
the section also indicates, an obligation to acquire
land. The timelines contemplated by the section
also indicate that the owner or person affected
cannot be left to hang indefinitely without a
decision to follow up the purchase notice by
acquisition of the land in question.
12. However, it has been argued on behalf of
the State that Section 49 abruptly ends with sub-
section (7), after which there are no timelines
indicated as to what is to happen after the
appropriate authority makes an application to
acquire the land within one year from the date of
confirmation of the notice. In our view, this
argument must be rejected, inasmuch as Section
49(1) itself states that the purchase notice must
require the appropriate authority to purchase the
interest in the land "in accordance with the
provisions of this Act". This being so, once the
appropriate authority makes the necessary
application to acquire the land within time under
Section 49(7), we move over to Sections 126 and
127 of the Act.
13. Under Section 126(1)(c), when after the
publication of a draft regional plan or
development or other plan, any land is required or
reserved for a public purpose, the appropriate
authority may make an application to the State
Government, for acquiring such land under the
Land Acquisition Act. Under sub-section (2)
thereof, on receipt of such application, if the State
Government is satisfied that the land specified in
the application is needed for the public purpose
specified therein, then excepting the cases falling
under Section 49, the State Government may
make a declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, to that effect. However, such
declaration under Section 126(2) must be made
Gauri Gaekwad 15 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
within a period of one year from the date of
publication of the plan in question.
14. A purchase notice may be served under
Section 49, after the expiry of one year from the
date of publication of the plan in question, in
which a case Section 126(2) of the Act will not
apply. Under Section 126(4), the State
Government may make a declaration under
Section 6 subject to the modification that the
market value of the land shall be the market value
at the date of the declaration in the Official
Gazette made for acquiring the land. But this does
not mean that the State Government has carte
blanche to do as it pleases. Ordinarily, the State
Government is bound to act under Section 126(4)
within a reasonable time from the appropriate
authority making an application to acquire the
land. This should ordinarily be within a period of
one year from the date such an application is
made. However, if such declaration is not made
within the aforesaid period, it will be open for the
aggrieved person to move the Court to direct the
State Government to make the requisite
declaration immediately.
15. But the matter does not end here.
Thereafter, Section 127 kicks in. If a declaration
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is not
made within a period of 10 years from the date on
which a plan comes into force under sub-section
(4) of Section 126, the owner or any person
interested in the land may serve a purchase notice
on the authorities, and if within one year from the
date of service of such notice, the land is not
acquired or no steps are commenced for its
acquisition, the reservation, allotment or
designation shall be deemed to have lapsed.
16. The aforesaid scheme of Sections 126
and 127 has been the subject-matter of several
judgments of this Court. In Girnar Traders v. State
of Maharashtra, a three-Judge Bench, by a
Gauri Gaekwad 16 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
majority judgment delivered by Naolekar, J.
framed the question before the Court thus: (SCC
p. 573. para 19)
19. The question that requires
consideration and answer in the present case
is: Whether the reservation has lapsed due to
the failure of the planning authority to take
steps within the period of six months from
the date of service of the notice of purchase
as stipulated by Section 127 of the MRTP
Act; and also the question as regards
applicability of new Section 11-A of the LA
Act to the acquisition of land under the
MRTP Act.
17. After setting out Sections 126 and 127,
this Court then laid down the scheme of Section
126, which makes it clear that the Section 6
notification under the Land Acquisition Act is to
be issued, in cases where acquisition is made
under Section 126(1)(c), in pursuance of an
application by an appropriate authority to the
State Government within one year from the
publication of the plan in question, or by way of
the State Government making a fresh declaration
beyond a period of one year under Section 126(4).
This is stated by the Court in para 28 as follows:
(Girnar case, SCC p. 576)
28. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 provides
for one year's limitation for publication of
the declaration from the date of publication
of the draft plan or scheme. Sub-section (4),
however, empowers the State Government to
make a fresh declaration under Section 6 of
the LA Act even if the prescribed period of
one year has expired. This declaration is to
be issued by the State Government for
acquisition of the land without there being
any application moved by the planning/local
authority under clause (c) of Section 126(1).
Gauri Gaekwad 17 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
18. Insofar as Section 127 is concerned, the
Court went on to hold: (Girnar case, SCC pp. 577-
78, paras 31-32)
31. Section 127 prescribes two-time periods.
First, a period of 10 years within which the
acquisition of the land reserved, allotted or
designated has to be completed by agreement
from the date on which a regional plan or
development plan comes into force, or the
proceedings for acquisition of such land
under the MRTP Act or under the LA Act are
commenced. Secondly, if the first part of
Section 127 is not complied with or no steps
are taken, then the second part of Section
127 will come into operation, under which a
period of six months is provided from the
date on which the notice has been served by
the owner within which the land has to be
acquired or the steps as aforesaid are to be
commenced for its acquisition. The six
month period shall commence from the date
the owner or any person interested in the
land serves a notice on the planning
authority, development authority or
appropriate authority expressing his intent
claiming dereservation of the land. If neither
of the things is done, the reservation shall
lapse. If there is no notice by the owner or
any person interested, there is no question of
lapsing reservation, allotment or designation
of the land under the development plan.
Second part of Section 127 stipulates that the
reservation of the land under a development
scheme shall lapse if the land is not acquired
or no steps are taken for acquisition of the
land within the period of six months from the
date of service of the purchase notice. The
word "aforesaid" in the collocation of the
words "no steps as aforesaid are commenced
for its acquisition" obviously refers to the
steps contemplated by Section 126 of the
MRTP Act.
Gauri Gaekwad 18 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
32. If no proceedings as provided under
Section 127 are taken and as a result thereof
the reservation of the land lapses, the land
shall be released from reservation, allotment
or designation and shall be available to the
owner for the purpose of development. The
availability of the land to the owner for the
development would only be for the purpose
which is permissible in the case of adjacent
land under the relevant plan. Thus, even after
the release, the owner cannot utilise the land
in whatever manner he deems fit and proper,
but its utilisation has to be in conformity
with the relevant plan for which the adjacent
lands are permitted to be utilised.
12. Girnar Traders v/s. State of Maharashtra6 was
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with
Chhabildas (supra) and it was finally held in paragraph nos.22 to
30 as under :
22. It is, thus, clear that the scheme of
Sections 126 and 127 would leave nobody in
doubt, for the reason that if a period of 10 years
has elapsed from the date of publication of the
plan in question, and no steps for acquiring the
land have been taken, then once a purchase notice
is served under Section 127, steps to acquire the
land must follow within a period of one year from
the date of service of such notice, or else the land
acquisition proceedings would lapse.
23. On a conspectus of the above authorities,
the following position in law emerges :
23.1. In all Section 49 cases, where a
purchase notice has been served and is
6 (2007) 7 SCC 555
Gauri Gaekwad 19 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
confirmed within the period specified, the
appropriate authority must make an
application to acquire the land within one
year from the date of confirmation of the
notice. If it does not do so, the reservation,
designation, etc. shall be deemed to have
lapsed.
23.2. If within the period specified in Section
49(7), the appropriate authority makes the
requisite application, then the State
Government may acquire the land by making
a declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act as set out under Section
126(4), wherein the market value shall be the
market value of the land as on the date of
Section 6 declaration. Ordinarily, such
declaration must be made within 1 year of
the date of receipt of the requisite
application. In case this is not done, it will be
open to the aggrieved person to move the
Court to direct the State Government to
make the requisite declaration immediately.
23.3. If 10 years have passed from the date
of publication of the plan in question, and a
purchase notice has been served under
Section 127, and no steps have been taken
within a period of one year from the date of
service of such notice, all proceedings shall
be deemed to have lapsed. Thus, even in
cases covered by Section 49, the drill of
Section 126(4) and Section 127 will have to
be followed, subsequent to the appropriate
authority making an application to acquire
the land within the period specified in
Section 49(7).
24. The learned counsel appearing for the
State has relied upon this Court's judgment in
Prakash R. Gupta v. Lonavala Municipal Council,
wherein this Court held that the scheme
contemplated by Section 49 is totally different
Gauri Gaekwad 20 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
from that of Section 127, for the reason that there
is no period of 10 years in Section 49 as
mentioned in Section 127.
25. This judgment does not carry the matter
any further as it is clear that, once an application
is made within the requisite period contained in
Section 49(7), land acquisition must follow in
terms of Section 49(1) to purchase the interest in
the land, in accordance with the provisions of the
MRTP Act, as indicated above.
26. This Court, in Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v.
State of Maharashtra, held that where an
inordinately long delay takes place from the date
on which the appropriate authority makes an
application to acquire the land (in that case 20
years), the land in question stands released from
reservation.
27. In the aforesaid judgment, the purchase
notice under Section 49 of the Act was dated 17-
8-2000. The Director, Town Planning, wrote a
letter to the Chief Officer of the Khopoli
Municipal Council stating that proceedings for
land acquisition for an Agricultural Produce
Market Yard would be initiated within one year
from 16-3-2001. Consequently, the Khopoli
Municipal Council wrote a letter on 23-4-2001 to
the Agricultural Produce Market Committee to
initiate acquisition proceedings. As nothing was
done, the appellant ran from pillar to post and
ultimately filed a writ petition in February 2004,
complaining that the respondents are neither
acquiring the land belonging to the appellant nor
releasing the same from reservation for the
Agricultural Produce Market Yard. The High
Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition stating
that as the provisions of Section 127 were not
attracted, there could be no lapse. This Court,
after referring to Sections 49 and 127 of the Act,
held: (Hasmukhrai case, SCC p. 160, para 12)
Gauri Gaekwad 21 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
12. We think it pertinent to mention here that
APMC, Respondent 5, even after service of
notice, has not cared to contest this appeal.
Also, we think it relevant to mention that till
date no steps appear to have been taken for
acquisition of the land in question or to
release the same. The land of the appellant,
in our opinion, cannot be held up, without
any authority of law, as neither the same is
purchased till date by the respondent
authorities, nor acquired under any law, nor
the appellant is being allowed to use the land
for the last more than twenty years."
28. It thereafter referred to T. Vijayalakshmi
v. Town Planning Member and Girnar case and
then held: (Hasmukhrai case, SCC pp. 162 & 163,
paras 15 & 18)
15. In view of the principle of law laid down
by this Court, as above, we are of the view
that in the present case since neither have
steps been taken by the authorities concerned
for acquisition of the land, nor is the land of
the appellant purchased under purchase
notice, nor is he allowed to use the land for
the last more than twenty years, the land will
have to be released as the appellant cannot
be deprived from utilising his property for an
indefinite period.
18. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set
aside the impugned order passed by the High
Court. Since no steps appear to have been
taken till date for the last more than twenty
years either for acquisition or for purchase of
the land under the MRTP Act, 1966 by the
authorities concerned, as such, the land in
question stands released from reservation
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
29. The aforesaid judgment lays down that
since more than 20 years had elapsed since the
Gauri Gaekwad 22 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
date of the purchase notice under Section 49 on
the facts of that case, the land will have to be
released from acquisition. No doubt this Court
held that over 20 years is an inordinately long
period of delay, and therefore, lapsing has taken
place under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
However, on the facts of that case, no purchase
notice under Section 127 was issued after, 10
years had elapsed from the date of publication of
the requisite plan. This being the case, we read the
judgment as having allowed a lapse to take place,
in view of the inordinately long delay of over 20
years, by really doing complete justice on the
facts of that case under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
30. In the present case, 15 years have passed
since the date of publication of the development
plan, and over 10 years have passed since the date
of the purchase notice issued under Section 49.
Considering the fact that there has been no stay at
any stage by any court, it is clear that an
inordinately long period of time has elapsed, both
since the date of publication of the development
plan. as well as the date of the purchase notice
served under Section 49. No doubt, the letter of
26-9-2008 shows that an application was made
within the requisite time period to acquire the
aforesaid land. However, on the facts of this case,
since after the aforesaid letter nothing has been
done to acquire the appellant's property, we are of
the view that the reservation contained in the
development plan as well as acquisition proposal
have lapsed. We make it clear that we hold this in
order to do complete justice between the parties
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
However, in all future cases that may arise under
the provisions of Section 49, the drill of Section
127 must be followed i.e. that after 10 years have
elapsed from the date of publication of the
relevant plan, a second purchase notice must be
served in accordance with the provisions of
Section 127, in order that lapsing can take place
Gauri Gaekwad 23 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
under the aforesaid section. With these
observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. The facts of the case before us are quite clear. The
owner of the property has already followed the drill as required
under Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act. On 19th June, 2006,
considering the effect of Section 127 prior to the amendment, the
reservation was deemed to have lapsed after six months on
19th December, 2006. It is well settled that, in every case, litigants
are not required to approach the High Court seeking a Writ of
Mandamus to direct the acquiring authority to forward a proposal to
the Government for declaring the lapsing of the reservation,
followed by action on the part of the Government under Section
127(2) of the MRTP Act to issue a notification to that effect. In
effect, the reservation in this case lapsed on 19th December, 2006.
14. In Prafulla C. Dave (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
concluded that if a revised development plan is sanctioned prior to
the issuance of a notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, such
notice would stand neutralised, and a fresh lease of life of ten years
from the date of the sanction of the revised development plan would
commence, and the owner could issue a notice under Section 127
Gauri Gaekwad 24 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
only after the lapse of such further period of ten years. It is also held
that if the revised development plan is sanctioned after the expiry of
the period of two years from the date of the purchase notice under
Section 127, such revised development plan would not affect the
claim of the owner, and the reservation on the land would be
deemed to have lapsed.
15. In Hasina Kudbuddin Shaikh (supra), this Court dealt
with a somewhat similar case to the one before us. Paragraph nos.12
to 15 form the conclusions of this Court, which read as under :
12. Now this takes us to consider the effect
of the sanction of the second revised draft
development plan on 7th October, 2016. By this
notification dated 7th October, 2016, the
Government reinstated the earlier reservation
No.46 on the subject land. The reinstatement of
the reservation is of no consequence after lapsing
of reservation under section 127 of the MRTP Act
and the law in this regard is no more res integra.
The Division Bench of this Court in Baburao
Dhondiba Salokhe versus Kolhapur Municipal
Corporation, Kolhapur and anr. 2003 (3) Mh.L.J.
after considering the decision of Apex Court in
Bhavnagar University AIR 2003 SC 511, in
paragraph 17 held as follows :
17. The legal position as regards MRTP Act
on the basis of aforesaid observations made
by Apex Court in Bhavnagar University
emerges that by imposition of a statutory
obligation under section 38 on the part of the
State or the appropriate authority to revise
the development plan the rights of the
Gauri Gaekwad 25 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
owners accrued in terms of section 127 are
not taken away. Section 38 of MRTP Act, in
our opinion, does not and cannot be read to
mean that substantial right conferred upon
the owner of the land or the person interested
under section 127 is taken away. In other
words, section 38 does not envisage that
despite the fact that in terms of section 127,
the reservation lapsed, only because of a
draft revised development plan or final
revised development plan is made would
automatically result in revival of reservation
that had lapsed. If the reservation of the
petitioner's land for the purposes of garden
had lapsed and as we found in fact has lapsed
in 28-2-1992, because of draft revised plan
made in the year 1992 and thereafter final
revised development plan sanctioned in the
year 1999 would not revive the lapsed
reservation.
13. The decision of Baburao Dhondiba
Salokhe (supra) was followed by another Division
Bench in Kishor Gopalrao Bapat and ors. Versus
State of Maharashtra and anr. 2005(4) Mh.L.J.466
and Kishor S/o.Siddeshwar Wadotkar (Dr.) vs.
Director of Town Planning and ors. 2007(3)
Mh.L.J.399.
14. In the light of the above, we are of the
opinion that once the reservation is lapsed, the
same cannot be revived. In view of the
contingencies mentioned in section 127 of the
MRTP Act, the necessary consequence under the
scheme of section 127 of the MRTP Act must
follow. The land which is released from
reservation becomes available to the owner for the
purpose of development. This right which is
conferred or accrued to the owner of the land due
to lapsing of reservation cannot be taken away by
the Planning Authority by exercising power under
section 38 of the MRTP Act.
Gauri Gaekwad 26 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
15. In the backdrop of the reasons stated
above, the petition succeeds. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (b-1)
and (b-5). Consequently, the subject land becomes
available to the owners for the purpose of
development as otherwise permissible in case of
adjacent land owners under the relevant law. The
State Government is directed to issue notification
under section 127 (2) of the MRTP Act within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
this order.
16. It was held by this Court that once the reservation had
lapsed under Section 127, the reinstatement of such reservation by a
revised development plan was of no consequence.
17. In Vasant Mahadev Patil (dead) and Ors. (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case, which we find to be quite
similar to the one before us. The facts are set out in paragraph no.3
(sub-paragraph nos.3.1 to 3.12), which read as under :
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in
a nutshell are as under :
3.1. The dispute is with respect to the land
bearing RS No. 138, admeasuring 3 hectares and
65 ares, situated at E ward, Near New Palace,
Kolhapur owned by the original writ petitioners.
The development plan for the City of Kolhapur
was sanctioned on 18-12-1999. Different portions
of the land in question were reserved in the
sanctioned development plan for various public
purposes, namely, parking, garden, extension of
sewage treatment plant, etc. That as the land in
Gauri Gaekwad 27 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
question was not acquired and/or used for the
public purposes for which the same was reserved
under the sanctioned development plan, the
original writ petitioner landowners served a notice
under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred
to as "the MRTP Act") on 2-1-2012.
3.2. By Resolution dated 18-2-2012, the
General Body of the Municipal Corporation
resolved to acquire the said property and
accordingly on 17-4-2012, a proposal was
submitted by the Municipal Corporation to the
State Government for compulsory acquisition of
the subject property. The District Collector passed
an order dated 7-7-2012/9-7-2012 directing that
the proposal for acquisition be transferred to the
Special Land Acquisition Officer (11), Kolhapur
for necessary action. By the said order, the
Corporation was directed to deposit 25% of the
amount before publication of the notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act"), 25% of
estimated compensation amount before the
publication of a declaration under Section 6 of the
1894 Act and remaining 50% of the estimated
compensation amount before the declaration of
award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.
3.3. That on enactment of the 2013 Act, the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be repealed.
Therefore, the land in question was subjected to
the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer directed the Corporation to
deposit the amount of Rs 77,65,12,000 towards
compensation vide its letter dated 6-10-2015 in
order to issue necessary orders as per Section 19
of the 2013 Act. It appears that the Corporation
was not in a financial position to pay such a huge
compensation amount and so by letter dated 17-3-
2016 requested the original writ petitioner
landowners to accept the transferable
development rights ("TDR") in lieu of
Gauri Gaekwad 28 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
compensation amount as per the Development
Control Rules of the Corporation. The original
writ petitioners also at the relevant time accepted
the said proposal and submitted an application
dated 12-5-2017 for grant of TDR. In the
meantime, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
by its letter dated 22-9-2016 informed the
Municipal Corporation to deposit 30% of the total
amount of compensation and also informed that
the land under reservation fell within the flood
affected area due to its proximity to "Jayanti
Nala" and considering the valuation of the said
area as per the market value of 2016-17 (ASR),
the amount of compensation was reduced from Rs
77,65,12,000 to Rs 43,41,29,400.
3.4. It appears that there was some
correspondence between the original writ
petitioners and the Corporation with respect to the
TDR proposal. According to the Corporation, the
grant of TDR was always subject to the provisions
of the Development Control Rules and further
subject to satisfying the conditions mentioned in
the said Rules. According to the Municipal
Corporation as per the Development Control
Rules, any owner before the grant of TDR will
have to surrender the land under reservation by
carrying out necessary developments according to
prevailing bye-laws at his own cost and free of
encumbrances.
3.5. According to the Corporation, the
reserved area was coming within high flood line
and every year for a period of fifteen days to one
month, the said area gets flooded during rainy
season. According to the Corporation, the
reserved land/area is flood affected and a rivulet
named "Jayanti Nala" passes through the said area
under reservation. Therefore, as per the
Corporation, before the TDR proposal could be
considered, it was necessary to carry out the
required development work upon the said
reserved land for making it suitable for the public
Gauri Gaekwad 29 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
purpose as per the reservation, to be carried out by
the original writ petitioner landowners. According
to the Corporation, if the said developments are
not done, the land under reservation will not be
able to be utilised for the purpose for which it is
reserved. There were various correspondences
between the parties.
3.6. However, thereafter the writ petitioners
did not agree to avail of the TDR and the original
writ petitioner landowners filed the present writ
petition before the High Court and prayed for the
following reliefs :
(a) Rule be issued and records and
proceedings be called for;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue writ of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus thereby directing
Respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith publish a
final notification under sub-sections (2) and
(4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with
Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act; 2013;
(c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue writ of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus thereby directing
Respondent 3 Corporation to forthwith
deposit the amount of compensation i.e. Rs
77,64,12,000 with Respondents 2 and 7 and
further Respondents 2 and 7 may be directed
to forthwith release the said amount of
compensation to the petitioners;
(d) Such further and other order be made as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice and in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Gauri Gaekwad 30 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
3.7. The said petition was vehemently
opposed by the Municipal Corporation. An
affidavit-in-reply opposing the writ petition was
filed on behalf of the original Respondent 6
Municipal Corporation and others. It was
vehemently submitted that the reservation has
lapsed in view of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. It
was also submitted that it is not possible for the
Corporation to acquire the land on payment of
huge sum of Rs 43,41,29,400. It was submitted
that it was beyond the financial capacity of the
Corporation to pay such a huge compensation and
it was beyond their budgetary provision and had
grave financial implication. It was also pointed
out that even the TDR proposal had not been
materialised as the original writ petitioners were
not agreeable to fulfil their obligations for grant of
TDR as per the Development Control Rules. It
was also specifically pointed out that unless there
is development carried out at the cost of the
original writ petitioner landowners, it is not
possible for the Corporation to use the land for the
purpose for which it is reserved.
3.8. It was specifically pointed out that the
land in question is a wetland and that the area is
flood affected and a rivulet named "Jayanti Nala"
passes through the said area under reservation. It
was also specifically pointed out that the reserved
area is coming within the high flood line and
every year for a period of fifteen days to one
month the said area gets flooded during the rainy
season. Therefore, it was pointed out that it was
necessary to carry out the required development
work upon the said reserved area for making it
suitable for the purposes as per reservation. It was
also pointed out that if the said developments are
not done, the land under reservation shall not be
able to be utilised for the purposes it is reserved.
3.9. Before the High Court, the original writ
petitioners tendered affidavits dated 1-8-2018 and
Gauri Gaekwad 31 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
7-8-2018 recording that they do not wish to avail
of TDR (as observed by the High Court in para 5).
Thereafter by the impugned judgment and order,
the High Court has disposed of the writ petition
and issued the following directions in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India: (Vasant Mahadev Patil case, SCC OnLine
Bom para 8)
8.... (f) We direct the Special Land
Acquisition Officer (11), Kolhapur to
communicate to the third respondent
Municipal Corporation the amount which is
required to be deposited by the said
Municipal Corporation as a condition
precedent for issuing a declaration under
Section 19 of the said Act of 2013. The
communication demanding the amount shall
be issued by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer within one month from the date on
which this judgment and order is uploaded;
(ii) We may record here that there is no
dispute about the reservation of the subject
land in the sanctioned development plan and
therefore, in view of the proviso to Section
125 of the MRTP Act, the acquisition under
the said Act of 2013 shall commence from
the stage of declaration under Section 19
thereof;
(iii) Within a period of two months from the
demand for payment made by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer as aforesaid, the
third respondent shall deposit the requisite
amount with the Collector/Special Land
Acquisition Officer;
(iv) Within a period of one month from the
date of deposit of the requisite amount by the
third respondent, a declaration under Section
19 of the said Act of 2013 shall be
issued/published in accordance with law;
Gauri Gaekwad 32 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
(v) The acquisition proceedings shall be
completed and compensation shall be paid as
expeditiously as possible in accordance with
law and in any case within a period of one
year from the date on which the declaration
under Section 19 of the said Act of 2013 is
published;
(vi) Writ petition is disposed of with the
above directions;
(vii) For reporting compliance with the
above directions by the third respondent the
petition shall be listed under the caption of
directions on 26-11-2018."
3.10. While issuing the aforesaid directions,
the High Court has observed that as there was
already a resolution passed by the General Body
of the Municipal Corporation to acquire the
subject lands by taking recourse to law of
compulsory acquisition, therefore, there is no
option for the Municipal Corporation but to
acquire the said land by taking recourse to the
2013 Act.
3.11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the impugned judgment and order dated 13-8-
2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Vasant Mahadev Patil v. State of
Maharashtra¹, the Kolhapur Municipal
Corporation and others have preferred the present
Civil Appeal No.510 of 2022.
3.12. It appears that after the impugned
judgment and order dated 13-8-2018¹ passed by
the High Court and after the above directions
were issued, the appellants Kolhapur Municipal
Corporation and others filed one Civil Application
No. 2461 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 5310 of
2018 for modification of the judgment and order
dated 13-8-2018¹ and prayed for the direction to
the original writ petitioners to accept the TDR in
Gauri Gaekwad 33 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
lieu of monetary compensation. It was also further
prayed for directing that in the event of the failure
of the Corporation to deposit the amount, the
consequences under the MRTP Act, 1966 and the
2013 Act should follow. Both the aforesaid
prayers were rejected by the High Court vide
order dated 10-12-20182 by observing that the
original writ petitioners are not consenting to
accept the TDR in lieu of monetary compensation.
The order dated 10-12-2018 passed in Kolhapur
Municipal Corpn. v. State of Maharashtra is the
subject-matter of present Civil Appeal No. 511 of
2022.
18. Though the learned Advocate Mr. Aradhye vehemently
canvassed his proposition on the basis of the record, he could not
dispute that the purchase notice 'X' was served upon the Municipal
Council, inasmuch as, prior to the said notice, the Council had
consistently taken the stand that it did not desire the land anymore.
In the affidavit in reply dated 30th March 2026, filed on behalf of the
Council through Mr. Nikhil Madhukar Kanchan, Assistant Town
Planner, Saswad Municipal Council, the purchase notice 'X' is
neither disputed nor contradicted. In fact, the Council remained
unresponsive to the notice 'X' and, therefore, the doctrine
'acceptance sub silentio' would squarely apply in the present case.
19. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasant
Mahadev Patil (dead) and Ors. (supra) concluded, in paragraph
Gauri Gaekwad 34 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
nos.36 to 40, that in such circumstances, once the reservation on the
land was deemed to have lapsed under Section 127(1), no Writ of
Mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to acquire the
land and thereafter pay compensation to the landowners, since, upon
the lapsing of the reservation, the land in question is free from
reservation and the landowners are entitled to use it as if there was
no reservation. In paragraph no.37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
recorded that "Once by operation of law, the reservation is deemed
to have lapsed, it is lapsed for all purposes and for all times to
come".
20. In the light of the undisputed facts before us, it is clear
that the purchase notice under Section 127 was received by the
Council and no steps were taken towards acquisition. The
reservation had lapsed by effect of law on 19 th December, 2006.
The second revised development plan was sanctioned and published
on 23rd June, 2017, indicating the same reservation for ' Primary
School and Playground', after 19th December, 2006, i.e., upon the
lapse of ten years and six months, by which time the reservation had
already deemed to have lapsed. Since this notice was rejected by the
Council, the Petitioners again issued a purchase notice under
Section 49 on 18th August, 2022. The Council submitted its report
Gauri Gaekwad 35 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
dated 8th December, 2022 to Respondent No.3, recommending not to
confirm the purchase notice. The Council then forwarded a proposal
to the District Collector for acquisition of the Suit property, on
24th January, 2023. Respondent No.3, by order dated 9 th February,
2023, confirmed the purchase notice dated 18th August, 2022. On
6th March, 2023, Respondent No.3 addressed a communication to
the Council informing it of the confirmation of the purchase notice
and calling upon it to submit a proposal for acquisition within the
prescribed period of one year under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act.
However, between 6th March, 2023 and the filing of this Petition on
3rd May, 2025, and even as of today, the Council has not taken any
steps for acquisition of the land under reservation. The reservation
has, therefore, lapsed even in such circumstances.
21. In view of the above, this Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d), which read as under :
(b) To hold and declare that the reservation of
Primary School and Play Ground on the suit
admeasuring 4200 Sq Mtrs situated within the
limits of the Saswad Municipal Council, Saswad,
Tal:-Purandar, District:-Pune is lapsed and the suit
property is thus available to the Petitioners for
development;
(c) To hold and declare that the suit property i.e.
Survey No. 4 Hissa No. 11 admeasuring 4200 Sq
Gauri Gaekwad 36 of 37
906.WP-7963-2025.odt
Mtrs situated within the limits of the Saswad
Municipal Council, Saswad, Tal:-Purandar,
District:-Pune is not vested in the Respondent
Saswad Municipal Council;
(d) To permit the Petitioners to develop the
property in question in accordance with law.
22. We direct the Council to make a formal communication
to the appropriate authority within 15 days from today, about the
lapsing of the reservation, and within 30 days thereafter, the
competent authority/State Government would issue a notification of
the lapsing of the reservation under Section 127(2) of the MRTP
Act.
23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Gauri Gaekwad 37 of 37
