Shrikant Devidas Uplekar Since Dec Thr His Legal Heir vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010375202024

WP-4596-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4596 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 21494 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4596 OF 2024
Shrikant Devidas Uplekar , age 64 years
R/o. Bungalow No.57, Indraprasth
Colony, Opp. Icchamani Ganpati
Temple, Upnagar, Nashik 422 006
(since deceased through his legal heir ;
A. Aruna Shrikant Uplekar (Adult) age – 65
years,
B. Amruta Shrikant Uplekar
(Adult) Age - 33 years,
All R/o. Bungalow No.57,
Indraprasth Colony, Opp. Icchamani Ganpati
Temple, Upnagar, Nashik 422 006
.....Petitioners /
Applicants
Versus
1. Malegaon Municipal Corporation
A statutory corporation incorporated
Under the provisions of the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act
having its office at Malegaon
2. The Commissioner,
Malegaon Municipal Corporation
3. The Collector, Nashik
4. Assistant Director of Town Planning,
Kanda – Batata Bhavan, Agra Road, Nashik
Wakodikar
1/16
Digitally signed
by RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Date:
2026.10.23
12:46:35 +0530
RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
5. The Director, Town Planning
Near Pune Station, Pune, 411 001.
6. The Deputy Director, Town Planning
Nashik Division, Alias Government
Appointed Officer, Development Yojana
Malegaon having its office at Commissioner
Office, Nashik Road, Nashik
7. State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
under Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Vinit P. Ahuja i/b Mr. Prakash Ahuja, for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Patwardhan a/w Mr. A.V.Hardas, for the Respondent No.1-
Malegaon Municipal Corporation.
Smt. Reena A. Salunkhe, A.G.P for the Respondent – State.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
nd
DATE : 22 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent
of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ
of Mandamus, thereby directing that the reservation of the plot
Wakodikar
2/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
Nos.24 to 38 of Survey No. 68, situated at Malegaon Camp bearing
Reservation Site No. 20, is deemed to have lapsed and the petitioners
are entitled to develop the said property as otherwise permissible in
law.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said property was
reserved for primary school and playground for last more than 10
years from the date of coming into force the Development Plan for
the city of Malegaon. The petitioners gave a Purchase Notice under
Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 (‘MRTP Act’ for short). The respondent-Corporation did not
acquire the land nor did release the same from acquisition. Hence
the present petition is filed for the reliefs as mentioned in the prayer
clause of the petition.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are the owners of the plot bearing Nos.24 to 38
situated in Survey No. 68, admeasuring about 3400 square meters
situated at Village Malagaon Camp, Taluka Malegaon, District Nasik
(‘the said plot’ for short). The learned Counsel contended that the
Wakodikar
3/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
said plot of land was reserved in the Development Plan for the
purpose of primary school and playground under designated
reservation No. 20. The said Development Plan is annexed at
‘Annexure-D’ to the petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
st
submitted that the said plan was sanctioned on 21 August, 2009. It
is further submitted that the petitioners had initially objected to the
draft Development Plan prior to it coming into force. The
Government in exercise of power under the MRTP Act,
notwithstanding the objection raised by the petitioners and similar
other persons had brought the said plan into force with effect from
th
12 October, 2009. This was the second revised plan. He submitted
that the EP5 Site No. 20 was reinstated as per modifications
sanctioned by the Government under Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act
whereby the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 68, Plot No.
24 to 38 at Village Malegaon camp was finally reserved for public
purpose Site No. 20 i.e. construction of Primary School and
Playground. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said land
was under reservation since the year 2009, however, the process for
acquiring the land was never initiated for more than 10 years from
the date on which the land was brought under reservation. The
Wakodikar
4/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
petitioner ultimately invoked provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP
th
Act and issued a Purchase Notice dated 13 February, 2020 to the
respondent no.1-Corporation. The same was duly served upon the
th
respondent-Corporation on 14 February, 2020. The said Purchase
Notice is annexed at Exhibit-K to the petition. It is the contention of
the petitioners that the Purchase Notice was also addressed to the
Collector Nashik, Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Director Town Planning Pune, Director Town Planning
Nashik as well. He further submitted that inspite of receipt of the
said notice, no steps were taken by the respondent No.1-Corporation.
The State of Maharashtra through Desk Officer had replied to the
th
Purchase Notice by letter dated 24 February, 2020 addressed to the
Commissioner, Malegaon Municipal Corporation and a copy thereof
was addressed to the advocate for the petitioners confirming the
receipt of Purchase Notice issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

th
5. On 5 April, 2022 i.e. after expiry of 24 months of service of
the Purchase Notice, the petitioners had called upon the authorities
intimating them that the statutory period of 24 months is over and
that he may be permitted to carry out construction on the aforesaid
Wakodikar
5/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
th
reserved plot. The said reminder dated 5 April, 2022 is annexed at
‘Annexure-N1’ to the petition. The petitioners had submitted a plan
for the approval of the respondent No. 1.
6. The plan which was sought by the petitioners was rejected by
the Municipal Commissioner vide a letter issued by the respondent
th
No.1. The said letter dated 18 July, 2022 is annexed at ‘Annexure -
th
O’ to the petition. The petitioners thereafter on 7 September, 2022
applied for Zoning Certificate in respect of the said plot. The
th
respondent No.1 -Corporation had issued the Zone Certificate on 12
September, 2022. It is the contention of the petitioners that inspite of
th
receipt of the Purchase Notice dated 13 February, 2020, the
Corporation did not take any action within the time span of 24
months as stipulated in Section 127 of the MRTP Act and as such the
reservation had lapsed. The petitioners further contended that since
the reservation has lapsed, they are entitled to use the land for the
purpose which they wanted.
7. The learned Counsel Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, appearing for the
respondent-Corporation strongly objected the petition. He submitted
th
that the Development Plan dated 15 September, 2006 was partly
Wakodikar
6/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
st
sanctioned with effect from 1 November, 2006. He submitted that
st
the excluded part of the Development Plan dated 21 August, 2009
th
however, came into effect from 12 October, 2009. The property in
question is situated in this excluded portion.
th
8. The notice dated 13 February, 2020 under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act was served upon the Municipal Corporation. He
submitted that although the notice under Section 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was duly served
th
upon the Corporation, the Corporation on 26 August, 2020 wrote a
letter to the petitioners inter alia demanding several documents from
the petitioners. It is the contention of the respondent No.1-
Corporation that the petitioners should have immediately filed
response to the said notice and should have complied with the
th
requisition of the letter/notice dated 26 August, 2020. He
submitted that since the petitioner did not comply with the
th
requisition of the said notice dated 26 August, 2020, hence it
cannot be said that the reservation has lapsed. He invited our
attention to the reply filed by the Corporation to the notice dated
th
26 August, 2020 and contended that in absence of compliance of
Wakodikar
7/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
the said notice the present petition cannot be said to be
maintainable. The learned Counsel Mr. Patwardhan has stated that
the notice issued under Section 127 of the Act mandates that the
notice which is issued to the planning authority shall be accompanied
by documents showing title of the landowner or his interest in the
land. He submitted that as seen from the Purchase Notice, there
were no documents accompanied with the notice, hence, it cannot be
said to be valid notice as contemplated under the provisions of
Section 127 of the said Act.
9. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Perused
the documents on record.
10. The fact that the Development Plan with which the said plot is
th
concerned, has come into force with effect from 12 October, 2009 is
not denied by either of the parties. It is also not disputed that the
petitioners had issued notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act
th
upon the respondent No.1 - Corporation on 13 February 2020. All
that is contended by the respondent No.1 - Corporation is that
notwithstanding receipt of the said notice, the respondent No.1 –
Wakodikar
8/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
Corporation required certain documents from the petitioners which
were not given by the petitioners, hence, the notice cannot be said to
be a complete notice. At this juncture, it is necessary to see the
provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act as it stood at the time
when the Purchase Notice was issued.
"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 Developmentplan comes
into force or, if a declaration under subsection (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 published in the Official Gazette."
11. The only argument of the respondent No.1 – Corporation is
that the documents which were demanded by the respondent No.1 –
th
Corporation vide letter dated 26 August, 2020 were not supplied by
Wakodikar
9/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
the petitioners and hence, the present petition is not maintainable.
12. Thus, the only issue which remains to be considered is that
whether the Purchase Notice would be said to be a complete notice
in absence of the documents which were annexed along with notice
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
13. The land, in question is reserved as reservation plot No.20 for
primary school and playground as per the Development Plan of the
th
year 2009. Since the date of issuance of Purchase Notice dated 13
February, 2020 is not disputed, the period of 24 months come to an
th
end on 13 February, 2022, within which, the respondents were
required to take steps to acquire or to develop the land within the
prescribed period. The only grievance which is raised is that the
Purchase Notice was defective. On perusal of the requirement of
Section 127, it is clear that the only requirement of law is that the
purchase notice has to be issued by the person interested in the land
showing his title or interest in the land. The petitioners have filed a
rejoinder affidavit, where they had stated categorically that the
th
Purchase Notice dated 13 February, 2020 was accompanied by the
7/12 extract of the property, which showed the ownership of the
Wakodikar
10/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
property.
14. On perusal of the said Purchase Notice which is annexed to the
petition it is seen that the copies of the 7/12 extract were served
along with the said notice. At this juncture, it would be profitable to
rely upon the contents of the Purchase Notice itself. The said
Purchase Notice is at page 100 to the petition. The petitioners have
mentioned in paragraph No.6 of the said Purchase Notice that they
are annexing the 7/12 extract alongwith the Purchase Notice. The
said averments in vernacular read as under :
"सदरहू मि ळकत आ चे पक्षकारांच्या ालकीची आहे हे दाखमिण्यासाठी ालकी
हक्काचा पुराा म्हणून ७/१२ उतारा सोबत जोडला आहे.”
15. Thus, the entire contention of the petitioners that the Purchase
Notice did not accompany the 7/12 extract of the property are not
only factually incorrect, but also contrary to the documents on
record. It appears that the respondent No.1- Corporation has raised
facade to wriggle out of the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP
Act. The defence raised by the respondent is not tenable in
juxtaposition to Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of
1
Greater Bombay V/s Dr.Hakimwadi Tenants’ Association & Ors . held
1 1988 (Supp) SCC 55
Wakodikar
11/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
as under :
“7. According to the plain reading of Section 127 of the
Act, it is manifest that the question whether the
reservation has lapsed due to the failure of the Planning
Authority to take any steps within a period of six months
of the date of service of the notice of purchase as
stipulated by Section 127, is a mixed question of fact and
law. It would therefore be difficult, if not well nigh
impossible, to lay down a rule of universal application. It
cannot be posited that the period of six months would
necessarily begin to run from the date of service of a
purchase notice under Section 127 of the Act. The
condition prerequisite for the running of time under
Section 127 is the service of a valid purchase notice. It is
needless to stress that the Corporation must prima facie be
satisfied that the notice served was by the owner of the
affected land or any person interested in the land. But, at
the same time, Section 127 of the Act does not
contemplate an investigation into title by the officers of
the Planning Authority, nor can the officers prevent the
running of time if there is a valid notice. Viewed in that
perspective, the High Court rightly held that the Executive
Engineer of the Municipal Corporation was not justified in
addressing the letter dated July 28, 1977 by which he
required Respondents 4-7 the trustees, to furnish
information regarding their title and ownership, and also
to furnish particulars of the tenants, the nature and user of
the tenements and the total area occupied by them at
present. The Corporation had the requisite information in
their records. The High Court was therefore right in
reaching the conclusion that it did. In the present case, the
Planning Authority was the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay. It cannot be doubted that the Municipal
Corporation has access to all land records including the
Wakodikar
12/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
records pertaining to Cadastral Survey No. 176 of Tardeo.
We are inclined to the view that the aforesaid letter dated
July 28, 1977 addressed by the Executive Engineer was
just as attempt to prevent the running of time and was of
little or no consequence. As was rightly pointed out by
Respondents 4-7 in their reply dated August 3, 1977, there
was no question of the period of six months being
reckoned from the date of the receipt from them of the
information requisitioned. The Municipal Corporation had
been assessing the trust properties to property tax and
issuing periodic bills and receipts therefor and obviously
could not question the title or ownership of the trust. We
are informed that the building being situate on Falkland
Road, the occupants are mostly dancing girls and this is in
the knowledge of the Corporation authorities. The
rateable value of each tenement would also be known by
an inspection of the assessment registers. We must
accordingly uphold the finding arrived at by the High
Court that the appellant having failed to take any steps,
namely, of making an application to the State Government
for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act
within a period of six months from the date of service of
the purchase notice, the impugned notification issued by
the State Government under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act making the requisite declaration that such
land was required for a public purpose i.e. for a recreation
ground was invalid, null and void."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held in the
Judgment of Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’ Associations (supra) that the
Corporation has requisite information in the record about the area
Wakodikar
13/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
occupied by the concerned person whose land is reserved. Since the
Corporation has got access to all the land records including the
th
record pertaining to the property in question, the letter dated 26
August, 2020 which was addressed by the respondent No.1-
Corporation to the petitioners was nothing but an attempt to prevent
the running of time and was of little or no consequence to decide the
issue of lapsing of reservation.
18. To sum up, the petitioners had annexed the 7/12 extract of the
property. There is no dispute that the description of the land was
properly mentioned in the Purchase Notice. There was, thus, no
ambiguity in any manner in the Purchase Notice which was issued by
the petitioners which described the land with sufficient clarity and
which accompanied the 7/12 extract, which prima facie denoted the
title of the petitioner to the said land. The Purchase Notice, thus, in
all aspects complied with the statutory requirement of Section 127 of
the MRTP Act.
19. We are fortified in our view in relying upon the judgment in
2
the matter of Chinmay Gurnath Parade V.s State of Maharashtra . We
2 WP/3890/2021, High Court of Bombay at Bombay
Wakodikar
14/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
are also fortified in our contention in relying upon the Judgment in
the matter of Yakub Salebhai Contractor & Ors. V/s. The State of
3
Maharashtra & Ors . where the co-ordinate bench of this Court had
considered the requirement of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and have
also considered as to which documents were required to be
accompanied with the notice.
20. Once we have steered clear the position that the petitioners
have complied with the requisition of Section 127, then the only
question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner had
taken any steps for the purpose of acquisition of the land in question.
The question is not debatable inasmuch as, the learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1- Corporation submitted that since
the petitioner did not comply with the requisitions of the notice
th
dated 26 August, 2020 issued by the Municipal Corporation, there
was no question of further initiating any steps. This being the
position in hand, since the respondent No.1- Corporation has not
taken any steps as contemplated in Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the
conclusion is inevitable that the reservation in the present case has
lapsed. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner has complied with the
3 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1292
Wakodikar
15/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30

WP-4596-2024.doc
provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The reservation on the
said land bearing Plot Nos.24 to 38 situated on Survey No. 68 in
Malegaon Camp Ward, Malegaon, District Nashik and the reservation
bearing Site No. 20 has lapsed. As a corollary, the petitioners are at
liberty to use the land for the purpose which he is entitled to taking
into consideration the Development Plan of the city. Hence, the
petition is allowed.
21. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
22. No order as to costs.
23. In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 4596 of 2024 stands
disposed of accordingly.
24. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition today and taking
into consideration that legal representatives were brought on record
th
vide Order dated 25 July, 2024, the Interim Application (Stamp)
No.21494 of 2024 stands disposed off accordingly.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar
16/16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 12:52:30
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)