Subhashchandra Hukumchand Khurana vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai And Ors

2026:BHC-NAG:6800-DB
1/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6726 OF 2025
Subhashchandra Hukumchand Khurana,
aged 54 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o B-26, Shankaracharya Road,
Adarsha Nagar, North West, Delhi …. Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Director,
Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. Nagar Parishad Warud,
Through its Chief Officer/Administrator,
Warud, Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati
4. The Land Acquisition Officer/Deputy Collector,
(Acquisition), Laghu Sinchan, Amravati
5. Umesh Atmaramji Yawalkar,
aged about 55 years, Occ. MLA,
R/o Prabhag No.2, Ring Road, Warud,
Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati
6. Swapnil S/o Shashikant Belsare,
aged about 38 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Ward No.10, Jagrut Colony, Warud,
Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati
7. Kiran S/o Nanarao Sawarkar,
aged about 37 years, Occ. Councillor,
R/o Ward No.19, Bhavani Chowk, Warud,
Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati … Respondents.

2/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
Shri Mohammad Atteque, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri D. V. Chouhan, Senior Advocate and Government Pleader with Shri N. S. Rao,
Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent No.3
Shri F. T. Mirza, Senior Advocate a/by Shri Sameer Khan, Advocate for respondent
Nos.5, 6 and 7.
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
th
DATE : 29 April, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per : Raj D. Wakode, J.)
Heard Shri Mohammad Atteque learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
D. V. Chouvan, learned Senior Advocate and Government Pleader for
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for respondent
No.3 and Shri F. T. Mirza, learned Senior Advocate a/by Shri Sameer Khan,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking challenge to the
impugned communication dated 17/10/2025 issued by respondent No.1-State
of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Urban Development Department and
respondent No.2-Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows.
The petitioner is the owner of an agricultural property bearing S. No.258
(divided into S. No.258/1, 258/1A, 258/1B, 258/2, admeasuring about 0.88R.,
0.88R., 0.87R. and 0.81R respectively, thus total area 3H. 44R.), to the extent

3/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
of Area 2H. 28R. of Mouza Warud, Tq. Warud, Dist. Amravati situated within
the limits of Municipal Council, Warud (herein after referred as ‘the aforesaid
land’).
5. Perusal of the petition would reveal that this is a case wherein respondent
No.2-Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State has in accordance with the
provisions of law declared that the reservation of the aforesaid land stood lapsed.
Before delving into the relevant facts, it would be appropriate to reproduce the
relevant provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town
Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred as ‘the said Act’) which read thus :
127. Lapsing of reservations :
((1)] If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose
specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten
years from the date on which a final Regional plan, or final Development plan
comes into force for, if a declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of section
126 is not published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner or
any person interested in the land may serve notice, along with the documents
showing his title or interest in the said land, on the Planning Authority, the
Development Authority or, as the case may be, the Appropriate Authority to
that effect; and if within [twenty-four months] from the date of the service of
such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced
for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed
to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from
such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the
owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of
adjacent land under the relevant plan.
[(2) On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any
land under sub-section (1), the Government shall notify the same, by an order

4/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
published in the Official Gazette.]”
6. The petitioner who is the owner of the aforesaid land has waited for
almost 18 years before issuing the purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the
aforesaid Act for acquisition of the aforesaid land. The Government of
Maharashtra vide Notification No.TPS-2809/1896 /CR-8(A) /2004/UD-30
dated 15/07/2005 which came into force with effect from 01/09/2005,
sanctioned the development plan of Warud Municipal Council under the
provisions of Section 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act,
1966. In the aforesaid sanctioned development plan, approximately 2.238
HR of the aforesaid land bearing Survey No.258 of Mouza Warud owned by
the petitioner was affected by Reservation No.7-‘Weekly Market’.
7. The respondent No.3-Municipal Council, Warud was designated as
Planning Authority (Appropriate Authority) for acquisition and development
of the aforesaid Reservation. Though the sanctioned development plan came
into effect on 01/09/2005, for a period of ten years i.e. till 01/09/2015, the said
land affected by the said reservation was not acquired by the Appropriate
Authority. Hence the petitioner served a notice under Section 127(1) of the
aforesaid Act on the Appropriate Authority on 20/07/2023. The notice was
duly received by respondent No.3 on 24/07/2023. The aforesaid fact is not
disputed by the respondent No.3. Even after receipt of such notice, the
aforesaid land of the petitioner was not acquired either by agreement or by
issuing notification under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the said Act

5/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
in official gazette. Thus, there were no steps initiated by respondent No.3 as
contemplated under Section 127 for acquiring the aforesaid land. In view of
above, the respondent No.2 -Director, Town Planning had called report from
Joint Director, Town Planning, Amravati. In pursuance of the same, the Joint
Director, Town Planning, Amravati submitted his report on 16/09/2025 stating
that though the Municipal Council, Warud, has submitted a land acquisition
proposal, no notification under the provisions of section 126(2) or 126(4) of the
said Act has been published in the Official Gazette within a period of 24
months from the date of service of the said notice under the provisions of
section 127(1) of the said Act for acquisition of the said land. Therefore, it is
necessary to issue an order under the provisions of Section 127(2) of the said
Act.
8. In accordance with the provisions of law being duly complied and the
report of Joint Director, Town Planning, Amravati Division, Amravati,
respondent No.2-Director, Town Planning has passed order dated 10/10/2025
thereby declaring that the reservation of the aforesaid land stood lapsed in terms
of Section 127(1) of the said Act. He further notified such decision regarding
lapsing of reservation in respect of the aforesaid land as per the provisions of
Section 127(2) of the said Act and accordingly amended the Sanctioned
Development Plan pointing out that 2.28 Ha of the aforesaid land which was
reserved vide Reservation No.7 for ‘Weekly Market” should be released. The
order dated 10/10/2025 passed by respondent No.2-Director, Town Planning,

6/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
Pune is at record page 66 (Annexure-6).
9. It is worth to mention here that the aforesaid order dated 10/10/2025
was not challenged by any of the Authorities before the Court of law and thus
has attained finality. However, for the reasons best known to respondent No.1-
Secretary, Urban Development Department, on 17/10/2025 has issued the
impugned communication staying the aforesaid order dated 10/10/2025. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
10. Perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that respondent No.2 has stayed his
own order in compliance of communication dated 17/10/2025 and has directed
respondent No.3 not to act upon the same.
11. The respondent No.3 has filed his reply on 06/01/2026 wherein
respondent No.3 has tried to point out necessary steps taken by the respondents
for acquiring the aforesaid land. It is pointed out that it has submitted the
proposal for acquisition of land and grant of necessary funds for acquiring the
aforesaid land to the State Government. The Planning Department of the State
Government has granted funds of Rs.10 Cr for the acquisition and development
of the aforesaid land vide its communication dated 20/10/2025. It is further
submitted that by Resolution dated 04/11/2025, a technical sanction is given
for acquisition of the aforesaid land and the proposal was submitted to the
Collector for administrative approval. The Collector vide his communication
dated 01/01/2026 has granted administrative approval for acquisition of the

7/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
aforesaid land.
12. Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that
on 07/11/2025, measurement of the aforesaid land was done and the
measurement sheet was submitted to the Land Acquisition Officer for further
acquisition process. He vehemently submits that respondent No.3-Appropriate
Authority has taken all the necessary steps for acquisition of the aforesaid land
and hence the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal.
13. Shri F. T. Mirza, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sameer Khan,
learned counsel had filed an application for intervention in the present writ
petition on behalf of respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. The aforesaid application was
allowed by this Court on 30/03/2026. Shri Mirza, learned Senior Advocate
argued that the aforesaid land is the only suitable and available land within the
municipal limits for establishing Weekly Market and no alternative site exists.
Thus, due to the lapsing of reservation of the aforesaid land, the entire Warud
will be left without Weekly Market resulting in serious hardship and
inconvenience to the general public. It is submitted that respondent No.5 is
the member of State Legislative Assembly representing Warud and in order to
address such grievance of the general public, he has been approaching the
concerned government Authorities for establishing Weekly Market in Warud.
Our attention is invited to the Government Resolution dated 20/10/2025
(record page 131 Annexure-R5-1) whereby respondent No.1 has allotted a fund

8/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
of Rs.10 Crore for acquisition of the aforesaid land for the reservation of Weekly
Market.
In view of the above, Shri Mirza, learned counsel submits that the present

petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

14. No doubt, respondent No.3-Authority has taken steps for acquisition of
the aforesaid land but the fact remains that the aforesaid land was reserved in
the Sanctioned Development Plan which came into force on 01/09/2005. The
respondents have not acquired the aforesaid land within a period of 10 years
from the date on which Sanctioned Development Plan came into force i.e. on
01/09/2015. It is after lapse of further about eight years from the aforesaid date
that the petitioner has issued purchase notice under Section 127(1) of the said
Act on 20/07/2023 which was duly received by respondent No.3 on
24/07/2023. All the aforesaid steps as pointed out by learned counsel Shri
Sambre for respondent No.3 and Shri F. T. Mirza, Senior Advocate for
reservation Nos.5, 6 and 7 were taken by the respondents after 24/07/2025
which was the outer limit as provided under the statute. Section 127(1) clearly
provides that if the Appropriate Authority does not take any steps as mentioned
under Section 127(1) or does not acquire the land within a period of 24 months
from the date of service of purchase notice, reservation is deemed to have been
lapsed and the land shall be duly released from such reservation.
15. Admittedly, in the present case, respondent No.3 has neither acquired

9/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
the aforesaid land nor have taken any steps as mentioned in Section 127(1) of
the said Act prior to completion of 24 months and thus respondent No.2 in
compliance of Section 127(2) of the said Act has passed the order dated
10/10/2025 thereby notifying that reservation in respect of the aforesaid land
stood lapsed and the land should be released from such reservation. The
impugned order dated 17/10/2025, in our considered view is issued by
respondent No.1 in colourable exercise of power and violating the decorum and
discipline of the quasi judicial Authority. The respondent No.1 has acted as the
appellate Authority of respondent No.2-Director, Town Planning, Pune
without there being any appeal provided in the statute or being filed by any of
the necessary party in the present case. Thus, the stay granted by respondent
No.1 vide impugned communication dated 17/10/2025 is dehors of any
authority in law which has severely caused prejudice to the rights of the
petitioner guaranteed under Section 300-A of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner, in paragraph 15 of the petition has stated on oath that respondent
No.1 has acted under political influence and the aforesaid fact is duly
substantiated by Civil Application No.278/2026 which is filed by applicant
No.1 who is local MLA and applicant No.3 Councillor of Municipal Council
thereby opposing the present writ petition.
16. The respondent Nos.5 to 7 vehemently opposed the present writ petition
inspite of the fact that they are not at all concerned with the subject matter of
the petition. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are neither related to the aforesaid land in

10/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
question nor with the Authorities who are involved in the process of acquisition
of the aforesaid land. The petitioner has placed on record at page 78,
Annexure-10 a news paper cutting so also the advertisement published by
respondent No.5 solely with the intention of grabbing publicity for securing the
credit of bringing the fund of Rs.10 Crore for acquisition of the aforesaid land.
The impugned communication dated 17/10/2025 issued by respondent No.1
(at record page-74A) by which stay is granted to the notification dated
10/10/2025 issued by respondent No.2, without there being any provision in
law, specifically refers to the communication dated 14/10/2025 issued by
respondent No.5. Infact it is on the basis of the communication dated
14/10/2025 submitted by respondent No.5 that the impugned communication
dated 17/10/2025 was issued by the respondent No.1. Thus, the petitioner is
completely justified in arguing that it is at the behest of respondent No.5 who is
a political leader that respondent No.1 has issued the impugned communication
dated 17/10/2025. The aforesaid intervention of the political leader in
functioning of the quasi judicial Authority has been strongly deprecated by this
Court in case of Savitribai vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 406.
Similar is the case of another impugned communication dated 17/10/2025
issued by respondent No.2 which is nothing but a consequential
communication issued by respondent No.2 in compliance of the directions
issued by respondent No.1 vide impugned communication dated 17/10/2025.
The respondent No.2 without there being any authority in law or such
provision in the said Act has stayed his own notification dated 10/10/2025

11/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
issued under Section 127(2) of the said Act. The aforesaid communication
dated 17/10/2025 while granting stay to the notification dated 10/10/2025
proposes that hearing is scheduled on 18/11/2025 at 3 pm for hearing the
respondent No.3 so also the petitioner. Upon query, Shri Mohd Atteque,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after passage of five months
now, not a single hearing has been conducted by the respondent No.2 nor any
order has been passed.
17. Rightly so, the respondent No.2 could not have passed any order or have
conducted hearing as contemplated in the impugned communication dated
17/10/2025 as he lacks such power under the said Act, having once issued a
notification under Section 127(2) of the said Act and having declared that
reservation of the aforesaid land stood lapsed. In fact, such declaration is also
a formal expression of lapsing of reservation which is by operation of law as
soon as period of 24 months from the date of service of purchase notice under
Section 127 is expired and no steps are commenced for acquisition of the
reserved land.
18. Thus, in our considered opinion, the impugned order dated 17/10/2025
is vitiated by bias and is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
19. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed.
20. The impugned communication dated 17/10/2025 which is at record
page 74-A issued by respondent No.1 so also by respondent No.2 (record page

12/12 J-WP-6726-25.odt
73, Annexure-8) is hereby quashed and set aside.
21. Rule is made absolute in 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: 02/05/2026 13:21:32