The Bombay High Court has clarified that a land reservation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, lapses automatically if the competent authority fails to initiate acquisition proceedings within twelve months of a statutory notice under Section 127, and that a subsequent revision of the development plan cannot revive such lapsed rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, four private landowners, sought a declaration that the reservation of their land in the Final Development Plan of Mehkar city had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), due to the respondents’ failure to initiate acquisition within the statutory period. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the Municipal Council of Mehkar, opposed the petition on the ground that a Revised Development Plan issued in 2012 had automatically revived the reservation.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are joint owners of Khasra/Survey No. 32, Sub-Division No. 1, measuring 0.62 hectares in Tahsil Mehkar, District Buldhana.
- The land was originally owned by Hadikhan Hamidkhan, who acquired it prior to 2011.
- The Final Development Plan of Mehkar, sanctioned on 01/04/1978, reserved the land as Site No. 12 for a playground.
- No acquisition proceedings were initiated by the respondents within ten years of the plan’s enforcement, as required under Section 127.
- On 13/09/2010, the previous owner, Hadikhan Hamidkhan, served a statutory purchase notice under Section 127 via registered post and personal acknowledgment to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
- The notice was received on 18/09/2010, triggering the 12-month statutory window for acquisition.
- On 13/01/2011, the previous owner sold the land to the petitioners via registered sale deed (Serial No. 182/2011).
- On 24/06/2011, the petitioners served a fresh statutory notice under Section 127, informing the respondents of the change in ownership and reiterating the demand for acquisition.
- No declaration under Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act was published by the respondents within the 12-month period ending on 17/09/2011.
- On 03/04/2012, the State Government sanctioned a Revised Development Plan, which again reserved the same land as Site No. 21 for a playground, effective from 15/05/2012.
- The respondents contended that this revision automatically revived the lapsed reservation.
Procedural History
- 13/09/2010: Purchase notice served by previous owner Hadikhan Hamidkhan.
- 18/09/2010: Notice received by Respondent No. 2 (Municipal Council).
- 13/01/2011: Registered sale deed executed in favor of petitioners.
- 24/06/2011: Petitioners served statutory notice under Section 127.
- 17/09/2011: Statutory 12-month period expired without any acquisition steps.
- 03/04/2012: Revised Development Plan sanctioned by State Government.
- 15/05/2012: Revised Development Plan came into force.
- 16/11/2012: Respondent No. 2 filed reply opposing the writ petition.
- 30/03/2026: Judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A declaration that the reservation of their land under Site No. 12 had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
- A direction to the respondents to publish a notification in the Official Gazette declaring the lapse.
- Permission to develop the land in accordance with permissible uses for adjacent properties under the development plan.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the reservation of land under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, once lapsed due to non-acquisition within twelve months of statutory notice, can be revived by the subsequent sanction of a Revised Development Plan.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave v. Nashik Municipal Corporation (2023 (2) BCR 469), arguing that:
- The statutory right to have a lapsed reservation declared void is vested upon expiry of the 12-month period.
- The failure to publish a declaration under Section 126(2) or initiate acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within the statutory period extinguishes the reservation.
- A Revised Development Plan cannot be treated as a step towards acquisition under Section 127.
- The Supreme Court in Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhambai Bhimaji Dawkher and Girnar Traders has held that mere re-reservation does not constitute acquisition.
- The respondents’ reliance on the Revised Plan was an attempt to circumvent statutory rights.
For the Respondent
Respondent No. 2 contended that:
- The Revised Development Plan, sanctioned on 03/04/2012 and effective from 15/05/2012, automatically revived the reservation.
- The planning authority has the power under Section 38 of the MRTP Act to revise plans, and such revision supersedes prior reservations.
- The petitioners’ rights were not absolute and must yield to the public interest embodied in the revised plan.
- The lapse of reservation was not final and could be overridden by subsequent planning decisions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory scheme under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which provides that if no steps for acquisition are taken within twelve months of a purchase notice, the reservation shall lapse. The Court emphasized that the term "steps" refers to concrete, legally recognized actions toward acquisition, not administrative or planning decisions.
"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."
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that a Revised Development Plan constitutes a step under Section 127. It held that such a revision is a planning exercise, not an acquisition step, and cannot be used to nullify a statutory right that has already vested.
The Court further relied on its own precedent in Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave, where it had unequivocally held that:
"The statutory right accrued to the owners cannot be taken away by an attempt to impose fresh reservation."
The Court noted that the respondents had failed to publish a declaration under Section 126(2) or initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act within the 12-month window ending on 17/09/2011. The reservation therefore lapsed by operation of law on that date. The Revised Development Plan, issued seven months later, could not revive what had already ceased to exist.
The Court also clarified that Section 38 of the MRTP Act empowers revision of plans but does not empower the authority to resurrect lapsed statutory rights. The two provisions operate in distinct domains: planning versus acquisition.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court declared that the reservation of Site No. 21 for a playground over Khasra/Survey No. 32, Sub-Division No. 1, measuring 0.62 hectares, had lapsed under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act on 17/09/2011. The respondents were directed to publish a notification in the Official Gazette within eight weeks declaring the lapse. The petitioners were granted liberty to develop the land in accordance with permissible uses for adjacent properties under the development plan.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Lapsed Reservation Cannot Be Revived by Planning Revisions
- Practitioners must argue that any attempt to re-reserve land through a Revised Development Plan after statutory lapse is legally void.
- The lapse under Section 127 is a vested right, not a temporary suspension.
- Planning authorities cannot use Section 38 to override statutory rights under Section 127.
Statutory Notice Must Be Timely and Properly Served
- A purchase notice under Section 127 must be served on the appropriate authority (Municipal Council or Planning Department).
- Service must be documented via registered post and personal acknowledgment to establish proof of receipt.
- The 12-month period begins from the date of receipt, not the date of dispatch.
Acquisition Steps Require Formal Legal Action
- Mere inclusion of land in a development plan, even if revised, does not constitute "steps" under Section 127.
- Only publication of a declaration under Section 126(2) or initiation of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act qualifies as a step.
- Delayed or non-existent acquisition proceedings after notice will invariably lead to lapse.
Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners
- File writ petitions immediately upon expiry of the 12-month period without waiting for formal denial.
- Attach certified copies of the purchase notice, postal receipts, and acknowledgment slips as evidence.
- Cite Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave and Shrirampur Municipal Council as binding precedents.
- Oppose any claim of automatic revival under Section 38 as legally untenable.
