[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
M/S. Shree Ganesh Builders Pvt. Ltd., ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary Urban ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:4824-DB
1/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5444 OF 2023
1. M/s. Shree Ganesh Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
A registered company having office
at 1st Floor, Mudliyar Complex,
Dhantoli, Nagpur,
Through its Director,
Shri Pahilaj S/o Jaggumal Sacchani,
Aged about 63 years,
Occupation: Agriculture/ Business,
R/o Plot no. 1, Near Dayanand Park,
Jaripatka, Nagpur
2. M/s. Shri Ganesh Estate,
A registered Partnership Firm
Having office at 1st Floor,
Mudliyar Complex, Dhantoli, Nagpur,
Through its Partner Shri Omprakash
S/o Jagumal Sacchani,
Aged about 54 years,
Occupation: Agriculture/Business,
R/o. Near Dayanand Park,
Jaripatka, Nagpur
3. M/s. Sainath Finance Corporation,
A registered Partnership Firm
Having its office at 1st Floor
Mudliyar Complex, Dhantoli,
Nagpur, Through its Partner
Shri Vijay S/o Kimatrai Ramani
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation: Agriculture/Business,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur .... Petitioners.
vs.
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
2. Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal
Corporation, Nagpur
21-23, Mahanagar Palika Marg,
Near Vidhan Bhavan, Collectors Colony,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Chairman, Nagpur Improvement
Trust, Station Road, Sadar,
Nagpur ... Respondents
Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate instructed by Ms Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for
petitioners.
Shri H.D. Marathe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.
Shri G.A. Kunte, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Ms S.S. Jachak, Advocate for respondent No.3
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 30th March, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Raj D. Wakode, J.)
Heard Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, Shri H.D. Marathe, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondent No.1/State, Shri G.A. Kunte, learned counsel for
respondent No.2/N.M.C., and Ms S.S. Jachak, learned counsel for
respondent No.3/ N.I.T.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ
Petition are as follows:
The petitioners had jointly purchased all that part and parcel of
3/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
land admeasuring about 0.81 Hectares bearing Khasra/Survey No. 35/4
(subdivision no. 4 of 35), (new Khasra no. 35/11), P.H. No.8-A of
Mouza-Gorewada, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the aforesaid land'
for the sake of bravity) vide a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2007 from
Shri. Shyamrao S/o Baliram Gawande.
4. As per the Development Plan dated 10.09.2001, the
aforesaid land came under the reservation of Cattle Stable and Dairy
Farm vide reservation no. NW-129. The respondent No.2 is the
appropriate Authority as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short 'the aforesaid Act') and as a
Planning Authority, it comes under the jurisdiction of NIT.
5. Though the final Development Plan for the city of Nagpur
was published on 10.09.2001 and came into effect on 02.09.2001, as
reflected in the extract of Notification which is at record page 47, the
respondents had not taken any steps for acquiring the aforesaid land for
a period of 10 years from the date of such Development Plan came into
force. The petitioners issued a notice under Section 127 of The the
aforesaid Act to all the respondents to acquire the said land within a
period of 12 months from the date of receipt of the said notice. The
petitioners informed the respondents that the said land had been
reserved for the purpose of "Cattle Stable and Dairy Farm" and the
4/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
appropriate authority has to acquire the same as reflected from the
Development Plan. That, the notice further specified that from the
date on which the said Development Plan came into force i.e.,
21.09.2001 and though 10 years have lapsed thereafter, appropriate
authority has taken no steps to acquire the said land or had issued any
declaration under Sections 126(2) or 126(4) of the aforesaid Act. The
aforesaid notice is at record page 49 (Annexure-C). Perusal of the
aforesaid notice reveal that the said notice dated 20.06.2014 was duly
served by the petitioners on respondent No.2-Commissioner, Nagpur
Municipal Corporation on 24.06.2014.
6. The respondent No.2-Nagpur Municipal Corporation has not
disputed the service of notice under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act on
24.06.2014 and the said fact is further confirmed as the respondent
No.2 has acted upon such notice. The petitioners received
communication dated 25.05.2015, issued by the respondent no.2,
offering TDR rights to the petitioners in lieu of the monetary
compensation for the land in question. The petitioners immediately
informed respondent no.2, vide a letter dated 07.08.2015 that in any
case the petitioners were unwilling to accept TDR in lieu of the
monetary compensation for the land in question.
7. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have never disputed the receipt of
5/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
the purchase notice under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act issued by the
petitioners on 20.06.2014. Even after the passage of more than nine
years, the respondents have neither taken any steps to acquire the said
land nor issued any declaration under Sections 126(2) or 126(4) of the
aforesaid Act. Consequently, the petitioners have approached this Court
seeking a declaration that the reservation of the aforesaid land stands
lapsed.
8. Shri Kunte, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2
N.M.C./Appropriate Authority has filed its reply on 06.11.2023. The
main thrust of the opposition by respondent No.2 for grant of relief of
lapsing of reservation to the petitioners in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the
aforesaid reply which read thus:
"3. That, as per the notice under Section 127 issued by the
Petitioners, the office of answering Respondent already taken
cognizance by issuing letter dated 25/05/2015 (Annexure: G,
Page No.61) to the Petitioners and offered TDR as per the
'DCR, 2000 by Town Planning Section, Nagpur Municipal
Corporation to the petitioner and asked to submit requisite
documents/proposal for TDR in terms of compensation u/s 126
of MRTP Act which is just and proper, no interference is
required in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
4. That, the petitioner after receipt of communication dated
25/05/2015 refused to accept compensation in terms of TDR
and replied the same as per letter communication dated
07/08/2015 (Annexure: H, Page No.62) to the office of
answering respondent which is already placed on record."
6/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
9. Thus, the contention of Respondent No. 2 is that since TDR
was offered to the petitioners and the same was declined by them, it
cannot be said that no effective steps were taken by Respondent No. 2
for acquisition of the petitioners' land under Section 127 of the
aforesaid Act.
10. The aforesaid issue regarding the offer of TDR and its refusal
by the landowner is no longer res integra and has been decided by the
full bench judgment of this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders and
Developers, Nagpur vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2022 (5) ALL
MR 1 (FB), wherein it has held that mere grant of approval or passing
of resolution by the Authorities concerned for grant of TDR/FSI in lieu
of monetary compensation is not a step towards the acquisition of land
and the land owner cannot be compelled to accept the same. The Full
Bench has also considered the issue of what constitutes a step
commencing the acquisition proceeding elaborately. In Writ Petition
No. 4535/2019, filed by M/s Pagariya Realtors vs. State of Maharashtra
and others., while dealing with a similar challenge on behalf of the
appropriate authority, this Court has held that merely offering TDR
would not be in compliance of Section 127 of the Act of 1966 and it is
not obligatory on the petitioner to accept the TDR in lieu of the
compensation.
7/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
11. Thus the first ground raised by respondent No.2 regarding
the offer of TDR and non-acceptance on the part of the petitioners,
leading to the denial of the relief of lapsing of reservation deserves to be
rejected.
12. The Respondent No.2 has further pointed out that after the
notice under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act was issued by the
petitioners, the respondent No.2 on 25.05.2015 has issued a
communication to the petitioner calling upon the petitioners to submit
the requisite documents. Therefore, the non-compliance of present
petitioners regarding the deficiency of the documents to be enclosed
along with the notice under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act, leads to
defective purchase notice and hence, the petitioners cannot claim the
relief as prayed herein on the basis of such defective notice.
13. The perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioners have
enclosed the documents showing their title in the said land along with
the purchase notice. The purchase notice dated 20.06.2014 issued by
present petitioners under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act is at record
page No.49 (Annexure-C). The perusal of said notice reveals that
petitioners had included the documents pertaining to the title of the
aforesaid land in paragraph No.1 of the aforesaid notice. Thus, the
ground raised by the petitioners loses its force.
8/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
14. So far as the other documents are concerned, the inclusion of
the aforesaid document is held as not mandatory by the Principal Seat at
Bombay of this Court in the recent judgment reported in the case of
Yakub Salebhai Contractor and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
MANU/MH/1484/2026 has held in paragraphs 17 to 21 of its judgment
dated 17.02.2026 thus :
"17. The planning authority, Respondent No. 3, has only
raised the grievance that a purchase notice was defective in the
absence of documents demonstrating title or interest in the land or
the notice did not contain a detailed description of the property,
nor did it produce the measurement sheet of the land in question to
indicate the extent of the land affected by the DP reservation.
According to us, the submission of documents showing title or
interest in the land, along with the Purchase Notice to the
concerned Authority as per section 127(1), is intended to facilitate
clear transfer of title from the owner or the person interested in the
land upon payment of the consideration to the claimant within the
stipulated period of 24 months.
18. In our view, after the expiry of the stipulated period of
twenty-four months under Section 127 (1) upon service of a
purchase notice, if the land is not acquired, or no steps as
contemplated under the said Section are commenced for its
acquisition, thereupon, the land is deemed to be released from such
reservation, allotment or designation; in such circumstances, the
concerned Authority cannot raise a defence that the purchase notice
was defective, as it was not accompanied by the documents showing
title or interest in the said land.
9/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
19. In other words, the concerned Authority cannot raise a
defence of a defective purchase notice for want of a document
showing title or interest in the said land, when it has failed to take
steps to acquire the land within the stipulated period as
contemplated by the provisions of the MRTP Act. Such documents
are not required for the release of the property from reservation,
allotment, or designation, when the land is not acquired, or no steps
are commenced for its acquisition, reservation, or allotment, as
provided in the MRTP Act, on account of the lapsing of the
reservation.
20. Besides, upon perusal of the purchase notice under Section
127 of the MRTP Act, it is evident from Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the
notice that the Petitioners have categorically provided a detailed
description of the land in question. Furthermore, the Petitioners
have referred to the 1978 DP reservation plan. Apart from the
above, it is to be noted that the Respondent No. 3 Council by
communication dated 25.11.2021 (page 100) admitted the receipt
of the Purchase Notice dated 02.08.2021 on the same date. By the
said communication, the Respondent No. 3- Council informed the
Petitioners regarding the implementation of the revised DP plan of
2005-2006 and asked them to produce the documents accordingly.
The said facts themselves indicate that the Respondent No. 3 does
not dispute the receipt of notice even after ten years of
implementation of the revised DP plan of 2005-06. Consequently,
we find no merit in the objection/grievance raised by the learned
Advocate for Respondent No.3, who contended that the
Petitioners failed to provide the details of the land, or that the
Purchase Notice did not disclose for which reservation number the
Petitioners had issued the Purchase Notice.
10/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
21. Thus, it emerges that Respondent No. 3. having failed to
take any steps to acquire the property within the period prescribed
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the documents as sought by it
are not required for the release of the land from reservation,
allotment, or designation."
15. Thus, the ground raised by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that
purchase notice was defective in absence of the documents as
mentioned therein, loses its force. Section 127(1) of the aforesaid Act
even otherwise refers to issuance of notice along with documents
showing title and interest in the said land which in the case at hand were
duly supplied by the petitioners.
16. In our considered view, the respondents cannot raise a
defence that the purchase notice was defective as it was not
accompanied by documents showing title of the land after expiry of
stipulated period of 12 months under Section 127 (1) upon service of
purchase notice if the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced
for its acquisition. In the present case, it is crystal clear that respondent
No.2 has failed to make a declaration in the official gazette in a manner
prescribed under Section 90 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 in respect of the aforesaid land. Admittedly, no such
declaration have been made by the respondents within the statutory
period of 12 months from the date of service of notice and thus the
11/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
provisions of Section 127 of the aforesaid Act would come into play and
the reservation of the aforesaid land should lapse. In the light of the
principles underlining Section 127 of the aforesaid Act, the reservation
shall be deemed to have lapsed if no steps are taken for acquisition of
such land within the prescribed period. Admittedly, in the present case,
the respondents have not taken any steps to issue notification after
receipt of the purchase notice. Thus, the second objection raised by
respondent No.2 is also unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to
be rejected.
17. In the light of above discussion and well settled legal position,
we find that the reservation for the aforesaid land has lapsed under
Section 127 (2) of the aforesaid Act on expiry of 12 months from
24.06.2014. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for the relief of
direction to permit them to develop the aforesaid land as prayed for by
them which was subjected for reservation. In that view of the matter,
we proceed to pass the following order :
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) It is declared that reservation No.NW-129 for "Cattle, Stable
and Dairy affecting land out of land bearing Survey No.35/4
(subdivision no.4 of 35), (new Khasra no.35/11), P.H. No.8-A
of mouza Gorewada, owned by the petitioners has lapsed under
Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966.
12/12 wp 5444-2023 J..odt
(iii) The respondents shall, within a period of eight weeks from the
receipt of copy of this judgment, publish in the Official Gazette
the notification of lapsing of reservation under Section 127 sub-
Section (2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 and declare that reservation No.NW-129 for "Cattle,
Stable and Dairy affecting land out of land bearing Survey 35/4
(subdivision no.4 of 35), (new Khasra no.35/11), P.H. No.8-A
of mouza Gorewada has lapsed.
(iv) The petitioners are free to develop the aforesaid land owned by
them in the manner permissible to adjacent land as per the
development plan.
18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Anil S. Kilor, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/03/2026 19:48:17
