[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Abhijit Praful Saoji And Ors vs The State Of Mah. Thr. The Secty. And Ors on 30 March, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:5039-DB
1 986-J-4790-2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4790 OF 2012
PETITIONERS : 1. Abhijit Praful Saoji,
Age - 39 Yrs, Occupation : Business,
R/o Doangaon, Tahsil - Mehakar,
Dist. Buldhana.
2. Anand Dattatrya Saoji,
Age - 36 yrs., Occupation : Business,
R/o Doangaon, Tahsil - Mehakar,
Dist. Buldhana.
3. Dr. Amit Arun Joshi,
Age - 31 yrs, Occupation : Practice,
R/o Shivaji Nagar Mehakar,
Dist. Buldhana.
4. Vinod Hiralal Jain,
Age - 31 yrs., Occupation : Engineer,
R/o Shivaji Nagar Mehakar,
Dist. Buldhana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Municipal Council/Nagar Parishad of
City of Mehkar, Through its Chief
Officer, Tahsil - Mehakar,
Dist. Buldhana.
3. The Town Planer, Town Planning Office,
Buldhana.
4. The Collector, Buldhana,
Tq & Distt. Buldhana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G. K. Mundhada, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri K. P. Mahalle, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri P. P. Pendke, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 986-J-4790-2012.doc
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATED : 30/03/2026.
JUDGMENT :
(PER RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) :-
1. Heard Shri G. K. Mundhada, Advocate for petitioners,
Shri K. P. Mahalle, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Shri P. P.
Pendke, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties at the stage of
admission.
3. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking
declaration that the reservation of the land owned by the
petitioners in the Final Development Plan of the City of Mehkar
stands lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the aforesaid
Act" for the sake of brevity).
The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are as
follows :-
4. The petitioners are the joint owners in possession of
Khasra/Survey No.32 Sub-Division No.1 area admeasuring O H 48
R. respectively of Tahsil - Mehakar, Dist. Buldhana (hereinafter
referred to as "the aforesaid land").
3 986-J-4790-2012.doc
5. The petitioners had acquired the aforesaid land from
Hadikhan Hamidkhan for a valuable consideration of forty two
lakhs by registered sale deed dated 13/01/2011 registered in the
office of Sub-Registrar, Mehkar at Serial No.182/2011.
6. The Development Plan of the city of Mehkar was
sanctioned by the State Government and it came into force w.e.f.
01/04/1978. In this Development Plan, the said land owned and
possessed by the petitioners and previous owner Hadikhan
Hamidkhan was reserved as Site No.12 for Play Ground area
admeasuring 0.62 Hectares, by respondent Nos.2 and 3.
7. As no steps for acquisition have been taken by
respondent Nos.2 and 3, previous owner Hadikhan Hamidkhan,
had served purchase notice to respondent No.2 through Registered
Post Acknowledgment dated 13/09/2010 under Section 127 of the
aforesaid Act. Said notice was also served personally by taking
acknowledgment of respondent Nos.3 and 5 on 13/09/2010 and
20/09/2010 and by the said notice, they were called upon to
acquire the land within the statutory period from the date of
service of the said notice.
8. The previous owner Hadikhan Hamidkhan had sold the
aforesaid land bearing Khasra/Survey No.32 Sub-Division No.1
4 986-J-4790-2012.doc
area admeasuring O H 48 R. respectively of Tahsil - Mehkar, Dist.
Buldhana to the present petitioners by way of registered sale deed
dated 13/01/2011 registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar,
Mehkar at Sr. No.182/2011.
9. The petitioners again sent purchase notice by
Registered Post Acknowledgment dated 24/06/2011 under Section
127 of the aforesaid Act to respondent No.2. Said notice also
informed the respondents about the change of ownership. Said
notice was also served personally by taking acknowledgment of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 24/06/2011 and 27/06/2011 and by
the said notice, they were called upon to acquire the land within
the statutory period from the date of service of the said notice.
Copy of such notice under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act issued
on 13/09/2010 (Annexure-B). The perusal of the aforesaid notice
reveals that it was duly served upon respondent No.2 on
13/09/2010. Further, the aforesaid notice was duly accompanied
with the document showing the title of the owner of the aforesaid
land issuing such notice.
10. The steps required to initiate land acquisition
proceedings under the aforesaid Act is publication of declaration
under Section 126(2) of the said Act. No such declaration has
5 986-J-4790-2012.doc
been published within the statutory time limit and the period of
twelve months as contemplated by Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act.
The period to be reckoned from the date of service of notice dated
18/09/2010. Statutory period came to an end on 17/09/2011
which is over and thus reservation of the abovesaid property
stands lapsed. Hence, the present writ petition.
11. Upon notice of this Court, the respondent No.2 -
Appropriate Authority has appeared and filed its reply on
16/11/2012. The perusal of the aforesaid reply filed on behalf of
respondent No.2 reveals that the main thrust of opposition for the
present writ petition on behalf of respondent No.2 is reflected in
Para No.5 of the reply which reads thus :-
"5. It is submitted that there was revision of Development Plan
of the city under Section 38 of the M. R. T. P. Act, of Mehakar which
was sanctioned by the State Government on 03.04.2012, it was
published and it came into force w. e. f. 15.05.2012. In this Revised
Development plan the said land owned and possessed by the
petitioner is again reserved as site no.21 for Play Ground, by
respondent No. 2. Hence right accrued to owner of the land due to
lapsing off reservation are taken away by the planning authority by
excersing power under section 38. There is automatic revival of the
reservation due to revision of the Development plan."
12. Thus, it is the contention of the respondent No.2 that
the right accrued to the petitioners due to the lapsing of
6 986-J-4790-2012.doc
reservation is taken away because of the Revised Development
Plan and thus, there is automatic revival of the reservation due to
such revision. The aforesaid issue as raised by the respondent No.2
is no more res integra as the aforesaid issue has been decided by
this Court in the case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave and others Vrs.
Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik, reported in 2023 (2) BCR
469. In the aforesaid case, this Court had framed issue specifically
regarding effect of the Revised Development Plan and has
answered it accordingly in following Paragraphs.
"22. 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.
23. It is not in dispute that the writ land was shown for a public
purpose in the development plan for Nashik prepared under
Section 26 of the MRTP Act which came into effect on 16 th
November 1993 and came to be reserved for "Housing for
Dishoused." The respondents did not take any steps to acquire the
said plot for a period more than 10 years as contemplated under
the provisions of the MRTP Act. The petitioners had admittedly
issued a purchase notice on 14th July 2015. It is also not in
dispute that in the Revised Draft Development Plan published in
the Government Gazette on 4th June, 2015, the writ land once
again is shown for public purpose. The purchase notice was
issued however, on 14th July 2015.
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
7 986-J-4790-2012.doc
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.
Satyabhambai 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 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 the Purchase Notice and
the same would have an effect of continuing the reservation on
account of the same being sanctioned subsequently.
13. Thus, this Court has held that the statutory right
accrued to the owners cannot be taken away by an attempt to
impose fresh reservation. The publication of Revised Development
Plan cannot be construed as steps taken as contemplated by
Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The steps towards such acquisition
can only be said to have commenced when the State Government
takes steps for acquisition of such land by publication of the
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
8 986-J-4790-2012.doc
14. In the present case, the Final Development Plan came
into force on 01/04/1978. The respondents did not take any steps
for the acquisition of the aforesaid land for the period of 10 years
which expired on 01/04/1988. The previous owner of the
aforesaid land issued notice under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act
calling upon the respondents to acquire the aforesaid land on
13/09/2010. The aforesaid purchase notice was duly served on
18/09/2010, which is not disputed by the present respondent
No.2. The statutory period of 12 months from the date of service
of such notice expired on 17/09/2011 and no steps were taken by
the respondent No.2 as contemplated under Section 127 of the
aforesaid Act for the acquisition of such land. Ultimately, the
provisions of Section 127(1) came into play and the reservation of
the aforesaid land stood lapsed on 17/09/2011 by operation of
law. Thus, the contention raised by the present respondent No.2
that the sanction of the Revised Development Plan revived the
aforesaid reservation is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is
accordingly rejected.
15. In the light of the above discussion and well settled
legal position, we find that the reservation for the aforesaid land
has lapsed under Section 127 sub-Section (2) of the aforesaid Act
9 986-J-4790-2012.doc
on expiry of twelve four months from 17.09.2011. Hence, the
petitioners are entitled for the relief of direction to permit them to
develop the land as prayed for by them which was subjected for
reservation. In that view of the matter, we proceed to pass
following order:
ORDER
[i] The writ petition is allowed.
[ii] It is declared that the reservation of Site No.21 for Play
Ground of land of Khasra/Survey No.32 Sub-Division No.1 area
admeasuring O H 62 R. of Tahsil - Mehakar, Dist. Buldhana has
lapsed under section 127 of MRTP Act, 1966.
[iii] The respondents shall within a period of eight weeks from
the receipt of the copy of this judgment be published in the Official
Gazette the notification of the lapsing of reservation under Section
127 sub-Section (2) of the aforesaid Act and declare that the
reservation of Site No.21 for Play Ground of land of
Khasra/Survey No.32 Sub-Division No.1 area admeasuring O H 62
R. of Tahsil - Mehakar, Dist. Buldhana has lapsed under section
127 of MRTP Act, 1966.
[iv] The petitioners are free to develop aforesaid land
owned by them in the manner permissible to adjacent land as per
the development plan.
10 986-J-4790-2012.doc
16. The Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
[ JUDGE ] [ JUDGE ]
Choulwar
Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/03/2026 20:07:31
