[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gopal Narayandasji Panpalia And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:5038-DB
J WP-3729-2025.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3729 OF 2025
PETITIONERS : 1 Gopal Narayandasji Panpalia,
Age: 62 years, R/o Balaji plot, Rajapeth, In
front of RSS Office, Amravati.
2 Sunil Ajabrao Khanzode,
Age: 51 years, R/o Gajendra Vihar, Finile
Mill, Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.
3 Pooja Shatikumar Sarda,
Age: 48 years, Krishnakunj, Pannalal Nagar,
Ukli, H V Nagar, Amravati.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1 The State of Maharashtra through the
Secretary Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2 The Municipal Corporation of City of
Amravati, Through its Commissioner,
Amravati Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal
Chowk, Amravati.
3 The Assistant Director of Town Planning,
Municipal Corporation, Amravati Off:
Municipal Corporation, Rajkamal Chowk,
Amravati.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. G. K. Mundhada, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri. A. V. Palshikar, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Shri. R. D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 30th MARCH, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
1. Heard Shri. G. K. Mundhada, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Shri. A. V. Palshikar, learned Assistant Government
J WP-3729-2025.odt
Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Shri. R. D. Dharmadhikari,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The present
writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties.
3. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a
declaration that the reservation of the land owned by the petitioners
in the final development plan stands lapsed from the reservation
under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as, "the MRTP Act", for the sake
of brevity).
4. Brief facts, leading to the present petition, are as
follows :
4.1. The present petitioners are the joint owners and
persons interested in Survey No.173/1/A, admeasuring a total area
of 1.21 H.R., situated at village Rahatgaon, Taluka and District
Amravati. The First Final Development Plan of the city of Amravati
was sanctioned by the State Government under sub-section (6) of
J WP-3729-2025.odt
Section 31 of the MRTP Act, vide Notification No.
TPS-2810/1180/CR-90/92/UD-13, published on 04.12.1992, and it
came into force on 25.02.1993. The said land, owned and possessed
by the petitioners, is reserved for a Primary School vide Reservation
No.103 by the respondents. Though, the land has been reserved for
the above said purpose by the respondents, no steps for its
acquisition have been taken by the respondents till date.
4.2. The revision of the First Final Development Plan of
Amravati city, which was sanctioned under sub-section (6) of
Section 31 of the MRTP Act, became due after 20 years in terms of
Section 38 read with Section 26 of the MRTP Act. Accordingly, a
notification for the Second Revised Draft Development Plan of
Amravati city was presented to receive assent from the General Body
on 28.11.2018. Thereafter, the Second Revised Draft Development
Plan, under Section 26 read with Section 38 of the MRTP Act, was
published in the Official Gazette of the Government of Maharashtra
for suggestion and objection on 06.12.2018. In the Second Revised
Draft Development Plan, the said property owned by the
petitioners, which is the subject matter of the present petition, is
again proposed to be reserved for the purpose of a vegetable market,
vide Reservation No.13.
J WP-3729-2025.odt
4.3. Though, the aforesaid land owned by the petitioners
was reserved for a Primary School vide Reservation No.103, in the
First Final Development Plan, which came into force on
25.02.1993, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did nothing in the matter for
acquisition of the aforesaid land. The petitioners, being interested in
developing the aforesaid land, issued a purchase notice under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the respondents on 19.06.2023,
which is on record at page No.19 (Annexure - B).
5. A perusal of the aforesaid notice reveals that the
petitioners have included the documents showing their title, i.e.
7/12 extract, the part plan and the chart prepared by the Planning
Authority under Section 6 of the MRTP Act. The aforesaid purchase
notice was served upon respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 21.06.2023,
which is substantiated by the acknowledgment at record page
No.28. The respondents have not disputed the aforesaid service of
notice. The period of 24 months, as contemplated under Section
127 of the MRTP Act, expired on 21.06.2025 and since the
respondents have not taken any step for acquisition of the aforesaid
land, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a
declaration of lapsing.
J WP-3729-2025.odt
6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, in response to the notice of
this Court, have appeared and filed their reply on 30.01.2026. A
perusal of the said reply reveals that the respondents have admitted
the title of the petitioners, the reservation of the land, issuance of
purchase notice dated 19.06.2023, and receipt of the same on
21.06.2023. However, the grievance raised by the respondents is
that though the petitioners have included 7/12 extract, chart
prepared by the Planning Authority and part plan, they have not
included the original copy of 7/12 extract and measurement sheet of
the aforesaid land and hence, the aforesaid purchase notice cannot
be acted upon. However, such grounds raised by the present
respondents loose their force in view of the fact that the respondents
themselves have accepted the aforesaid notice and forwarded the
proposal to the Collector, Amravati, on 26.07.2024 for
commencement of acquisition proceedings in respect of the
aforesaid land, requesting issuance of a notice under Section 19 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
7. Even otherwise, the aforesaid issue is no more res
integra, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Yakub
Salebhai Contractors and Others vs. State of Maharashtra,
J WP-3729-2025.odt
MANU/Mh/1484/2026, wherein this Court has held that the
documents such as measurement map are not mandatory documents
to be included alongwith a purchase notice and it its non inclusion
at the time of issuance of notice does not vitiate the aforesaid notice.
The fact remains that Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act specifically
provides that the notice under Section 127(1) shall be accompanied
with the documents showing title or interest in the land and does
not refers to any other document. Thus, in our considered view, the
aforesaid ground raised by the respondents is unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
8. The respondent Nos.2 and 3, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of
their reply, have contended that the Second Revised Draft
Development Plan, under Section 26 read with Section 38 of the
MRTP Act, was published in the Official Gazette of the
Government of Maharashtra inviting suggestion and objection on
06.12.2018. The purchase notice was issued by the petitioners after
publication of such Second Revised Draft Development Plan and
hence, the notice cannot be considered and benefits of lapsing
cannot be given to the petitioners. The respondent Nos.2 and 3
contend that the petitioners will have to wait for another 10 years
from finalization of the Second Revised Draft Development Plan,
J WP-3729-2025.odt
which is now pending with the Government of Maharashtra for
approval.
9. In our considered view, such a stand adopted by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 is completely unjust and unsustainable in
the eyes of law. The First Final Development Plan, under which the
aforesaid land was reserved, came into force on 25.02.1993. It is
after passage of 23 years i.e. on 23.01.2026, the aforesaid affidavit
was filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and on the date of filing of the
affidavit, the aforesaid land is still not acquired by the respondents
and the petitioners had been waiting for the same since last 23 years.
Now, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 contend that the petitioners will
have to wait for the approval of the Government of Maharashtra for
the Second Revised Draft Development Plan which was submitted
on 06.12.2018 and the same is yet to be finalized. The respondent
Nos.2 and 3 have stated on oath that the petitioners will have to
wait for 10 years from the finalization of such Second Revised Draft
Development Plan which is pending for approval since 2018 and
even after passage of 8 years, the same is not yet finalized.
10. Such approach on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3
shows the lack of apathy towards the valuable rights of the
J WP-3729-2025.odt
petitioners guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India. So far as the issue regarding the pendency of the revised
development plan is concerned, the aforesaid issue was considered
by this Court in Writ Petition No.8756 of 2018. In the background
of abovesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners states
that identical issue was considered by this Court in Writ Petition
No.8756 of 2018 along with the connected petitions. In the said
petition, the question was framed and decided by this Court, which
reads thus.
"Question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether
the purchase notice issued by the Petitioners subsequent to the
date of the Draft Revised Development Plan for the city of
Nashik would be a valid notice or not or the petitioners were
required to again wait for expiry of 10 years from the date of
the Draft Revised Development Plan for the city of Nashik and
then issue a fresh notice and then if no steps would be taken by
the respondents within the time prescribed, the reservation in
respect of the writ land would lapse at that stage or not."
This question has been answered by the Court by
recording the finding in paragraph Nos.37 and 38 as under :
"37. In our view, the reservation of the writ land has lapsed
upon the expiry of the period from service of the Purchase
Notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act. The proposal
bearing land acquisition Proposal No. 16 of 2006 pending
before the Collector, Nashik and or the sanction of the Draft
Revised Development Plan as the new plan by Notification of
9th January 2017 and consequently the writ land shown under
Reservation No.205 for public housing cannot be construed as
steps taken as contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
This Court in the case of Trilok Singh (supra). While adverting
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satvabhambai Bhimaji
Dawkher, 2013 5 SCC 627 and also to its earlier judgment in
the case of Girnar Traders (supra) has held that the steps
towards acquisition can only be said to have commenced when
the State Government takes steps for acquisition of the
J WP-3729-2025.odt
particular piece of land, by the publication of declaration under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
38. In the present case, the notification under Section 6,
admittedly, has not been issued. The statutory notice viz the
Purchase Notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was
issued on 14th July, 2015 and it is evident that no steps as
contemplated under Section 126(1)(c) read with Section 127
were taken before the expiry of the statutory period of 24
months. We are unable to agree with the submissions of Ms.
Deshmukh on the application of the judgment of Prafulla C.
Dave (supra) as it would deprive the petitioners of their
statutory rights. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of
Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra)
has held that the statutory right accrued to the owners cannot
be taken away by an attempt to impose fresh reservation. We
are also unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Patil that
the publication of the Draft Revised Plan having been
published prior to the issuance of of the Purchase Notice and
the same would have an effect of continuing the reservation on
account of the same being sanctioned subsequently."
11. Relying on the above Judgment, this Court in the case
of Abdul Sajid Abdul Samad & Anr. V/s The State of Maharashtra
& Ors. in Writ Petition No.5829 of 2024 decided on 26/2/2025
has observed in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 as under:
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that on account of the draft plan
prepared under Section 38 of the Act of 1966 on 06.12.2018,
the period of ten years, will have to be counted from the said
date, considering which, the Petition is not maintainable In this
context, what is required to be considered is that a similar issue
is raised has already been dealt with by the learned Division
Bench of this Court in Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave and others Vs.
Nashik Municipal Corporation and others, 2023 (2) BCR 469,
it is held as under :
"28. It is thus clear that even in respect of such
revised development plan, a draft thereof has to be
published followed by the objections and
suggestions, as may be, filed by the person
concerned, and after consideration of those
objections and suggestions, final revised
development plan is sanctioned. In our view, till
such time, the draft Revised Development Plan is
sanctioned finally and comes into effect in
accordance with the provisions prescribed in the
MRTP Act, the Draft Revised Development Plan
J WP-3729-2025.odt
has no legal sanctity and cannot be considered as
final.
29. It is obvious that if any objections and
suggestions opposing the Draft Revised
Development Plan are accepted by the Planning
Authority, such Draft Revised Development Plan
would not be final in its original form. Admittedly
the purchase notice issued by the petitioner under
Section 127 was not issued after the sanction of
Draft Revised Development Plan under Section 31
of the MRTP Act. The respondents thus cannot be
allowed to urge that the notice issued by the
petitioners under Section 127 of the MRTP Act
after publication of the Draft Revised Development
Plan would not be a valid purchase notice. There is
no substance in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondents that the time to take
steps by the respondents to acquire writ land would
not commence from the date of receipt of purchase
notice in view of the respondents already having
published a Draft Revised Development Plan or
that the petitioners would have to issue a fresh
notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act after
expiry of 10 years from the date of sanction of Draft
Revised Development Plan. The submission
advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents are ex facie contrary to the provisions
prescribed in Chapter III of the MRTP Act."
5. In the instant matter, it has not been brought on record
that the draft plan, has been sanctioned at any point of time till
date, on account of which, the same cannot be taken into
consideration, in view of what has been held above.
6. Though it is contended by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, that a proposal of acquisition has
been sent to the Respondent No.1, till date there is no response
thereto. The statutory period of 24 months in terms of Section
127 of the Act of 1966, has already been expired, in view of
which, we have no other option to hold that the reservation
stands lapsed in view of mandate of Section 127 of the Act of
1966."
12. Hence, considering the law laid down by this Court,
we are of the considered opinion that only because Second Revised
Development Plan was pending at the time of issuing notice by the
petitioners, their statutory right cannot be taken away. Hence,
J WP-3729-2025.odt
objection raised by the respondents is not sustainable. Consequently,
petitioners are entitled to take statutory benefits under Section 127
of the MRTP Act.
13. In light of the above discussion and the well-settled
legal position, we find that the reservation in respect of the aforesaid
land has lapsed under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act upon expiry
of 24 months from 21.06.2023. Hence, the petitioners are entitled
to the relief of a direction permitting them to develop the land, as
prayed for, which was subject to reservation. In that view of the
matter, we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The present writ petition is allowed.
ii) It is declared that the reservation of Primary School
vide reservation No.103 affecting area admeasuring
0.348HR of land bearing Survey No.173/1/A, area
admeasuring 1.21 H.R of of village Rahatgaon, Taluka
and District Amravati, has lapsed under Section 127 of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
and the petitioners are free to develop the aforesaid land
in the manner permissible to the adjacent land as per
J WP-3729-2025.odt
Regional Development Plan.
iii) The respondents shall within a period of eight
weeks from the receipt of the copy of this judgment,
publish in the Official Gazette the notification of the
lapsing of reservation under Section 127 sub-Section (2)
of the MRTP Act and declare that the reservation of
Institute vide Reservation No.103 affecting area
admeasuring 0.348 HR of land bearing Survey
No.173/1/A, area admeasuring 1.21 H.R. of village
Rahatgaon, Taluka and District Amravait has lapsed.
14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
TAMBE
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/03/2026 20:05:51
