[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kishor Tulsidas Dawda And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:5034-DB
1/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4893 OF 2023
1. Kishor Tulsidas Dawda
R/o Jalaram Ward, Ghatanji, Tah.
Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal.
Mob No. 8275299888
2. Kusum Suresh Dawda
Age:-66 Years, Occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalaram Ward, Ghatanji, Tah.
Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal.
Mob No. 8275299888 .... Petitioners.
vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Chief Secretary
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
2. Collector,
Collectorate office, Yavatmal
3. Chief Officer, Municipal Council
Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal.
4. Town Planning Department
Through its Director
State of Maharashtra,
Central Building Opp. Rubi Hospital, Pune.
5. Deputy Director of Town
Planning Nilgiri Building of Dr. Agarwal,
Congress Nagar Road Amravati.
6. Town Planner,
Administrative Building,
Collector premises, Yavatmal
Dist. Yavatmal. ... Respondents
Shri Nitin Babanrao Bargat , Advocate for petitioners.
Shri J. T. Ghurde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, 2 and 4 to
2/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
6/State.
Shri Pravin P. Deshmukh, 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 Nitin Bargat, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Shri J. Y. Ghurde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 and Shri Pravin P. Deshmukh, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the parties.
3. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows :
The petitioners own and possess a land situated at Mauza: Ghatanji
Tah. Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal, bearing survey no. 57/2A, area 0.67 HR land
revenue Rs.1.15, Occupancy Class I. and land survey no. 2 area 0.70 HR land
revenue Rs. 1, Occupancy Class I and land survey no. 57/2B, area 1.47 HR
land revenue Rs.2.25, Occupancy Class I.
The Draft Development Plan plan for the Ghatanji town dated
09.02.1999 U/s 30 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act,
1966 (for short, the said Act), came to be approved by the Urban
3/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
Development Department on 14.05.2002 as per section 31 (1) of the said
Act and the same came into force on 14.05.2002. In the said development
plan the land of the petitioners as well as other persons were came to be
reserved for the various development purposes.
4. The Urban Development Department issued a Notification on
13.07.2005 as per Section 31 (1) of the said Act and thereby published the
Revised Development Plan of the answering respondent i.e. respondent
No.3. The same came into force from 01.09.2005. In the said revised
development plan also the land of the petitioners as well as other persons
were shown to be reserved for various development purposes. The land of
the petitioners bearing survey No. 57/2A, area 0.67 HR land revenue
Rs.1.15, Occupancy Class I reserved for Primary School & Play Ground vide
reservation No. 19. The land survey No. 2 area 0.70 HR land revenue Rs. 1,
Occupancy Class I reserved for Housing for Dishoused vide reservation
No.25, and land survey No. 57/2B, area 1.47 HR land revenue Rs. 2.25,
Occupancy Class I reserved for School vide Reservation No. 20. Thus,
though the revised Development Plan published by the Urban Development
Department of the respondent No.1 came into force on 01.09.2025, for a
period of 10 years, the respondent No.3 took no steps for acquiring the
aforesaid land for the purpose of the aforesaid reservation. Hence, the
4/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
petitioners issued purchase notice under Section 127 of the said Act to the
respondent No.3 on 19/10/2020 (record page No.55 Annexure-8). The
aforesaid notice was duly served upon the respondent No.3 on 23/10/2020
The aforesaid fact is duly substantiated by communication issued by
respondent No.3 (record page 61, Annexure-9) wherein he has admitted the
receipt of such notice on 23/10/2020. Admittedly, from 23/10/2020 till
23/10/2022 i.e. till completion of 24 months, the respondents neither
acquired the aforesaid land of the petitioners nor has issued any declaration
under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the aforesaid Act in the official
gazette and thus have taken no steps as contemplated under Section 127 of
the aforesaid Act for acquiring the aforesaid land of the petitioners. In view
of the above, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present
petition seeking declaration that the reservation of the aforesaid land stands
lapsed under Section 127 of the aforesaid Act.
5. In compliance to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent No.3
entered appearance and filed reply on 09/10/2025. The learned counsel for
respondent No.3 Shri Pravin Deshmukh has pointed out that the notice
dated 19/10/2020 whereby the petitioners have requested to take steps in
accordance with law for purchasing the land of the petitioners, is essentially
a defective notice as the petitioners did not annex the necessary documents
5/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
with the aforesaid notice.
6. Perusal of the aforesaid notice dated 19/10/2020 reveals that the
petitioners have annexed copy of 7/12 extract along with Gao Namuna 8-A,
measurement sheet and part plan. Even otherwise, the aforesaid stand of
respondent No.3 loses its force in view of the fact that respondent No.3 has
acted upon such notice and had issued communication dated 29/06/2021 to
the petitioners thereby offering TDR in lieu of the compensation for
transferring the aforesaid land to the respondent No.3. Having once
accepted the aforesaid notice and acted upon it, the respondent No.3 is not
at all justified in raising a ground as to the notice being defective and that too
after lapsing of reservation on 23/10/2022.
7. We are supported in our view by recent judgment delivered at the
Principal Seat in case of Yakub Salebhai Contractor and ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors. MANU/MH/1484/2026 wherein it is held in
paragraphs 17 to 21 of the 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
6/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
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.
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
7/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
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.
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."
8. Thus, the ground raised by respondent No.3 that
purchase notice was defective in absence of the documents as
mentioned therein, loses its force.
9. As far as other ground raised by respondent No.3 in
8/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
relying upon the communication dated 29/06/2021 whereby the
respondent No.3 had offered TDR to the petitioners in lieu of
compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners after
receipt of said communication had immediately on 24/09/2021
declined to accept the compensation in the form of TDR and
demanded monetary compensation. Said communication is at
record page 65 (Annexure-13.) Thus, the respondent No.3 was
under obligation to acquire the said by paying compensation in
monetary form to the petitioners on or before 22/10/2022 as the
petitioners had refused to accept the compensation in the form of
TDR. The offer by the appropriate Authority to accept TDR/FSI
in lieu of monetary compensation cannot be construed as steps
taken towards acquisition of land unless there is an expressed
agreement between the parties in regard to acceptance of such
TDR/FSI. In absence of such agreement, TDR cannot be insisted
upon the petitioners particularly when the petitioners have flatly
denied such offer. The appropriate Authority cannot insist upon
the petitioners as to the manner in which they have to receive the
compensation for acquisition of their land.
10. In view of the above, the second ground of the
respondent No.3 for opposing the aforesaid claim of the petitioners
deserves to be rejected.
9/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
11. Lastly, Shri Pravin Deshmukh, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 has invited our attention to the communication
dated 05/04/2023 issued by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council,
Ghatanji to the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Yavatmal
pointing out that the answering respondent is ready and willing to
acquire the land of the petitioners but due to weak financial
condition of the answering respondent the same could not be
acquired till this time and it shall be acquired in future after having
availability of funds. The sanctioned Development Plan thereby
reserving the aforesaid land of the petitioners came into force on
13/07/2005. It is more than 20 years neither he respondents have
taken any steps for acquiring the said land and more specifically nor
after receipt of the purchase notice dated 19/10/2020 under Section
127 of the aforesaid Act which was issued on 23/10/2020. Thus,
the petitioners cannot be made to await the availability of funds
with the respondent No.3 for acquisition of their land for time
immemorial. In other words, the statutory provisions of Section
127(1) have come into force on 23/10/2022 when the period of 24
months which was available to the respondent No.3 for acquiring
the aforesaid land expired and on that day itself, in our considered
opinion, the reservation of the aforesaid land stood lapsed.
12. In the light of above discussion and well settled legal
10/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
position, we find that the reservation for the aforesaid land has
lapsed under Section 127 (2) of the MRTP Act on expiry of 24
months from 23/10/2022. 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 the following order :
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) It is declared that reservation of land bearing survey No.
57/2A, area 0.67 HR land revenue Rs.1.15, Occupancy
Class-I and land survey No. 2 area 0.70 HR land revenue
Rs.1, Occupancy Class-I and land survey No. 57/2B, area
1.47 HR land revenue Rs. 2.25, Occupancy Class-I has
lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966.
(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
of land bearing survey No. 57/2A, area 0.67 HR land
revenue Rs.1.15, Occupancy Class-I, land survey No. 2
area 0.70 HR land revenue Rs.-1, Occupancy Class-I and
land survey No.57/2B, area 1.47 HR land revenue Rs.
2.25, Occupancy Class-I owned by the petitioners has
lapsed.
(iv) The petitioners are free to develop the aforesaid land
owned by them in the manner permissible to adjacent land
11/11 903-J-WP-4893-23.odt
as per the Development Plan.
13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
(Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Anil S. Kilor, J.)
Asmita
Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/03/2026 19:45:22
