New Lotus Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

2026:BHC-AS:19590-DB

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by URMILA
PRAMOD
INGALE
Date:
2026.04.24
16:26:59
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

URMILA
PRAMOD
INGALE
WRIT PETITION NO.2227 OF 2010
New Lotus Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., a Co-operative
Society duly registered under the
Provisions of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960,
bearing Registration No.PNA/PNA/
(1)/HSG/(TO)/603/2000-2001,
having Office at Dealing Center,
Office No.4, Velankar Nagar,
Near Mitramandal Post Office,
Pune – 411 009 … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary to the
Ministry of Urban Development
Department, having Office at
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 023.
2. The Municipal Corporation of
the City of Pune, having
Office at Mahapalika Bhavan,
Shivajinagar, Pune, through
Its Municipal Commissioner.
3. The Collector, Pune.
4. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer No.15, Pune, having
Office at Pune Municipal
Corporation Regional Office
rd
Building, 3 floor, Tilak
Road, Above State Bank of
India, Pune – 411 002. .… Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2092 OF 2012 (for stay)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2227 OF 2010
New Lotus Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd.,
Bearing registration No.
PNA/PNA/(1)/Hsg/(TO)/603/2000-01,
Having office at
Dealing Center, Office No.4,
Velankar Nagar,
Near Mitra Mandal Post Office,
Pune – 411 009 … Applicant
(Orig. Petitioner)
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
(Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032)
2. Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune,
Having office at Mahapalika Bhavan,
Shivajinagar, Pune
Through its Municipal Commissioner,
3. The Collector,
Having office at
Office of the Collector,
Pune
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Officer No.15, Pune,
Having office at Pune Municipal Corporation
Regional Office Building,
rd
3 floor, Tilak Road,
Above state Bank of India,
Pune 411 002 … Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
2
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.723 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2227 OF 2010
1. Smt. Kusum Shankar Bathe
Age:-78 Occ:-Household/Retired
Residing At Bathe Chawl Mavle Ali
Karvenagar Pune 411 052.
2. Shri Devidas Shankar Bathe
Age:-56 Occ:-Agriculturist
Residing At:Archana Housing
Society Near Ganesh Nagar,
Karvenagar,
Dist. Pune 411 052 … Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
1. New Lotus Co-Operative Housing
Society Ltd.
A Co-operative society duly registered Under the
provision of Maharashtra Co-operative societies
Act 1960 bearing
Registration No.PNA/PNA (HSG)/
(TO)603/2000/2001
Having office at Dealing Center,
Office No.4, Velankar Nagar,
Near Mitramandal Post Office,
Pune – 411 009. … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary to the
Ministry of Urban Development
Department, having office at
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 023
2. The Municipal Corporation of The
City of Pune
Having office at Mahapalika Bhavan,
3
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
Shivajinagar, Pune
through its Municipal Commissioner,
3. The Collector Pune,
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No.15, Pune
Having office at Pune Municipal Corporation
Regional Office, Building,
rd
3 floor, Tilak Road,
Above state Bank of India,
Pune 411 002 … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5525 OF 2016
New Lotus Co-operative Housing Society
Having office at Dealing Centre,
Office No.4, Welankar Nagar, Near Mitra Mandal
Post Office, Pune 411 009
Through its Chairman Arvind Nanbhau
Gawade, Age 48 years, Occ. Service
R/o Survey No.36/12, Keshav Nagar,
Dhankawdi, Pune – 411 043 … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Urban Development Department,
Through its Principal Secretary
Having office at Mantralaya,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400032
2. The Director
Town Planning, Maharashtra State
Having office at Central Building
Opp. Sasoon Hospital, Pune 411 001
4
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
3. The Chairman
Government Appointed Committee
Revised Development Plan, Pune
And Divisional Commissioner,
Pune Division, Council Hall
Pune 411 001
4. The Pune Municipal Corporation
Through its Municipal Commissioner
P.M.C. Building, Near Mangala Theatre
Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411 005 .… Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3590 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5525 OF 2016
1. Smt. Kusum Shankar Bathe
Age:-78 Occ:-Household/Retired
2. Shri Devidas Shankar Bathe
Age:-56 Occ:-Agriculturist
Both Residing At Bate Mala,
Survey No.39/1 And 40/1
Karvenagar, Tal Haveli
Dist. Pune 411 052 … Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
1. New Lotus Co-Operative Housing
Society Ltd.
A Co-operative society duly registered Under the
provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative societies
Act 1960 bearing Registration No.PNA/PNA (HSG)/
(TO)603/2000/2001
Having office at Dealing Center,
Office No.4, Velankar Nagar,
Near Mitramandal Post Office,
Pune – 411 009. … Petitioner
5
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary to the
Ministry of Urban Development
Department, having office at
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 023
2. The Municipal Corporation of The
City of Pune
Having office at Mahapalika Bhavan,
Shivajinagar, Pune
through its Municipal Commissioner,
3. The Collector Pune,
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No.15, Pune
Having office at Pune Municipal Corporation
Regional Office, Building,
rd
3 floor, Tilak Road,
Above state Bank of India,
Pune 411 002 … Respondents

Adv. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Amey Deshpande, Adv.
Ganesh Misal, Adv. Rohit Chavan, Adv. Sunil Dude, Adv. Sandesh
Darade, Adv. Venkatesh Shinde i/b. Adv. Vishal Kale, for the
petitioners.
Smt. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Smt. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for the
respondent-State in WP/2227/2010.
Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP, for
the respondent-State in WP/5525/2016.
Adv. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Adv. Sweta Shah, for the respondent-
BMC.

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
rd
DATE : 23 APRIL, 2026
6
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since common issues
are involved in these petitions, the same are disposed of by this
common order. For convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 2227 of
2010 are referred.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs.
“a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or any other appropriate Writ, order and/or direction in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondents herein to
forthwith stop and cancel all the process and steps being taken by
them for acquisition of land admeasuring 1 Hectare 60 Ares from
Survey No.40/1 and admeasuring 37 Ares from Survey No.39/1 of
Village Karvenagar, earlier known as Hingane (Budruk of District
Pune under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning
Act, 1966 r/w provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that
the reservation for High School numbered as HS-15 in the sanctioned
revised final Development Plan of the Pune Municipal Corporation,
which has been published on 5.1.1987 in respect of area admeasuring
1 Hectare and 60 Ares of land from Survey No.40/1 and admeasuring
37 Ares from Survey No.39/1 of Village Karvenagar, earlier known as
Hingane (Budruk) of District Pune has elapsed u/s 127 of
Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 on account of
failure of Respondent No.2 Pune Municipal Corporation to take steps
for acquisition within six months of the date of service of notice dated
18.9.2001 on 26.9.2001 and be further pleased to hold and declare
that the said land is available for use in accordance with the user
permissible for the adjoining land namely for residential/commercial
purpose, as permissible.
c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
or any other appropriate Writ Order and or direction in the nature of
Certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside Resolution No.1593
7
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
dated 10.3.2005 passed by the Standing Committee of the Pune
Municipal Corporation being Exhibit "F" to this Writ Petition and the
order dated 30.7.2007 passed by the Collector, Pune being Exhibit "I"
to this Writ Petition.”
3. The subject matter is a plot of land bearing Survey Nos.39/1
and 40/1 of Village Karvenagar earlier known as Hingane
(Budruk) admeasuring 37 Ares and 1 Hector 60 Ares respectively.
So far as Writ Petition No. 2227 of 2010 is concerned, the
petitioner seeks a declaration that the land is free from reservation
and the reservation has lapsed in view of the purchase notice
issued by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’ for short) on
18/09/2001 and as no steps having been taken towards
acquisition thereof within a period of 6 months from the receipt of
the said purchase notice. During the pendency of Writ Petition No.
2227 of 2010, the State Government sanctioned the development
plan for Pune City in the year 2013 by which the reservation of the
petitioner's land was changed from ‘HS-15’ (High School) to ‘PG-
34’ (Playground). This change in reservation has been challenged
in Writ Petition No. 5525 of 2016 as it is the case of the petitioner
that the same has been carried out after the reservation lapsed in
view of the purchase notice. It is the petitioner’s case that on the
8
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
reservation itself lapsing, subsequent change in reservation is a
nullity.
4. The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The first
development plan was declared for Pune City on 15/08/1966. The
subject land was reserved for High School (HS–15). The second
development plan was declared for Pune City and was sanctioned
on 05/01/1987. The subject land continued to be reserved for
High School (HS-15). The petitioner acquired the subject land
under a registered Deed of Sale on 02/08/2000.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a purchase notice under
Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 (‘MRTP Act’, for short) on 18/09/2001. It is the case of the
petitioner that the reception room (Swagat kaksh) of the
respondent no. 2- the Municipal Corporation of City of Pune
(‘Corporation’ for short) shows that the purchase notice was
received on 26/09/2001. The time limit for the respondent no. 2
to initiate acquisition proceeding lapsed on 26/03/2002 i.e. 6
months after receipt of the said purchase notice. On 02/07/2002
9
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
the Standing Committee of respondent no. 2 passed resolution no.
470, resolving to commence the acquisition proceedings of the
subject land. The respondent no. 2 passed resolution no. 1593 on
10/03/2005, approving the acquisition proposal for the subject
land on the basis of Standing Committee Resolution No.470. The
Assistant Engineer of the respondent no. 2 prepared Demarcation
Certificate of the subject land on 09/11/2005 and prepared a
proposal for acquisition in Form "B" on 10/11/2005. The
agreement between respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 1-State
of Maharashtra for acquisition of subject land for the purposes of
High School was executed on 05/06/2007. The Collector, Pune
passed an order appointing Special Land Acquisition Officer-15
(‘SLAO’, for short) for acquisition of the subject land on
30/07/2007. The SLAO issued a notice for the survey of the
subject land on 29/08/2007. The City Survey Officer No.1, Pune
issued notices for joint survey of subject land on 30/01/2009. The
present Writ Petition No. 2227 of 2010 was filed before this Court
on 09/11/2009.
6. The Corporation filed affidavit-in-reply primarily raising the
following grounds:-
10
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
(i) That the purchase notice dated 18/09/2001 is
not traceable with the respondent no. 2-
Corporation.
(ii) That in any case, the said notice dated
18/9/2001 was not a valid Notice as required under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
7. The petitioner made an application under the provisions of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’, for short), seeking
information and documents pertaining to further process of
reservation/acquisition. The Special Executive Officer of the Land
Acquisition Office addressed a letter dated 12/01/2012 to Public
Relation Officer of the respondent no. 2 with reference to
petitioner's query under RTI Act informing as follows:-
(i) Notice dated 18/09/2001 was received by Reception
of Pune Municipal Corporation on 26/9/2001.
(ii) The acknowledgment of the said notice states that
the said notice was sent to City Engineer Office
(Development Plan) for further action.
8. The Public Relation Officer of the respondent no. 2
addressed a letter dated 19/01/2012 to Special Executive Officer,
Land Acquisition Office regarding receipt of purchase notice dated
18/09/2001 that it was received on 26/09/2001 and on the same
11
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
day it was sent to City Engineer for further action. The Special
Officer of the respondent no. 2 addressed a letter to Executive
Engineer of the Corporation on 02/02/2012 stating that the
purchase notice dated 18/09/2001 (received by the respondents
on 26/09/2001) was sent to Town Planning Department for
further action on the same day. The Special Executive Officer of
the Land Acquisition Office addressed a letter to the Additional
Collector and Competent Authority on 10/02/2012 acknowledging
that a purchase notice was received by the Corporation and that
the acquisition proposal was submitted by the Corporation and
that Writ Petition No. 2227 of 2010 was filed by the society.
9. Respondent no. 2 prepared the Draft Development Plan for
City of Pune under Section 26(1) of the MRTP Act. The subject
land, which was earlier designated as HS-15 (High School), was
re-designated as PG-34 (playground). On 25/04/2013, the
petitioner addressed a letter to respondent no. 2 and protested
about re-designation of the petitioner's land, particularly in view of
the purchase notice dated 18/09/2001 and lapsing of the
reservation on the subject land. The connected Writ Petition No.
5525 of 2016 was filed on 03/05/2006 challenging the
12
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
Development Plan finalization process in which the subject land
was sought to be re-designated in the proposed Development Plan.
10. It is the submission of Mr.Shah, learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioner that the reservation of the land in Development Plan
has lapsed by virtue of notice dated 18/09/2001 under Section
127 of the MRTP Act for want of any steps for acquisition of the
said lands within six months of service of purchase notice.
Learned Senior Advocate advanced the following submissions:
(i) That, the subject land was to be acquired within 10 years
from the adoption of the First and Second Development Plans
dated 15/08/1966 and 05/01/1987 respectively, in accordance
with Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which was not undertaken.
(ii) That thereafter, even upon issuance of purchase notice dated
18/09/2001 under Section 127, the Corporation failed to take any
steps within the stipulated period of 6 months, upon expiry of
which the reservation on the subject land stood lapsed.
(iii) That, the contention of the respondents-Corporation that the
said notice was not served upon the Corporation and the ground
taken in the affidavit-in-reply that the notice is not found in the
13
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
record of the Corporation is untenable considering the reply of the
Special Executive Officer, of the Land Acquisition Office to the
Public Relation Officer with reference to the petitioner’s query,
which suggested that the said notice was received by the reception
of the Corporation on 26/09/2001 and that the acknowledgment
of the said notice states that the notice was sent to City Engineer
Office (Development Plan) for further action.
(iv) That, the petitioner is entitled for benefit of deemed lapsing
of reservation on failure and delay of almost 60 years on the part
of the respondents to acquire the subject property from the year
1966.
(v) That, the respondent-Corporation’s understanding of the
notice dated 18/09/2001 as a purchase notice under Section 127
of the MRTP Act can be evinced from the letter dated 10/05/2012
addressed by the Special Officer of respondent no. 2 to the
Additional Collector and Competent Authority.
(vi) That, the purpose of a notice under Section 127 is to inform
the Corporation or Planning Authority that the land reserved
under the Development Plan has not been acquired for a period
exceeding ten years from the date of its sanction. Upon service of
14
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
the notice, if the Corporation or Planning Authority fails to take
steps toward acquisition within the prescribed period (six months
in this case), the reservation is deemed to have lapsed by operation
of law.
11. Learned Senior Advocate relied upon the following decisions
in support of his submissions.
a) Jyoti Baliram Thorat and ors. Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan
1
Region Development Authority and ors.
b) Jaika Vanijya Ltd. Nagpur and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
2
and ors.
12. Mr.Abhijit Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 - Corporation invited our attention to
the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Corporation and
advanced the following submissions:
(i) That, the present writ petition is barred by delay and laches,
given that the same has been filed on 09/11/2009 after a lapse of
nine years from the purported date of the notice i.e. 18/09/2001
under Section 127.
1 Decision of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 19414 of 2024 dated 30/01/2026
2 2013(4) Mh.L.J. 161
15
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
(ii) That, the notice dated 18/09/2001 which the petitioner
claims to have served on the Corporation is not traceable in the
record of the respondent- Corporation and hence the veracity of
the claim of the Petitioner that the same was served is doubtful.
(iii) That, even if the purchase notice was duly served, the
contents of the same are not in accordance with the provisions of
Section 127 as the notice cannot be construed to be a request to
the Town Planning Authority for purchase of the subject land, but
on the contrary the notice seeks minor modification of the
development plan in respect of the reservation of the subject land
under Section 37.
(iv) That, the notice has not been served upon the appropriate
authority (Municipal Commissioner) though the same has been
addressed to the Municipal Commissioner and the
receipt/acknowledgment of the submission of the said notice at
page 5 of the compilation of additional documents submitted by
the petitioner suggests that the said notice was in fact served upon
the City Engineer Office (Development Plan).
16
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
(v) That, the copy of the said notice produced before this Court
does not carry the signature and seal of the Corporation, which
would have otherwise clearly established that the said notice was
indeed served upon the Corporation.
(vi) That, the land is now reserved for playground and open
spaces, which are a need of the hour and that the Corporation is
ready and willing to submit a fresh proposal for acquisition of the
subject land as per law, within a period of four weeks and deposit
30% of the due amount within three weeks from the date of
communication of the said fresh proposal from the office of the
SLAO, thereby balancing the equities.
13. Learned counsel relied upon the following decisions in
support of his submissions.
3
a) Mr. Nilesh Prakashrao More Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
4
b) Prafulla C. Dave and ors. Vs. Municipal Commissioner and ors.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have
perused the materials on record.
3 Decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5798 of 2023 dated 27/03/2026.
4 (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 90
17
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
15. The first objection of the Corporation is that the purchase
notice dated 26/09/2001 was never received by the office of the
Corporation. A copy of the purchase notice is annexed at page 76
of the Writ Petition No. 5525 of 2016. On perusal of the same, it is
seen that there is acknowledgment of the receipt of notice. With
reference to the query made by the petitioner under RTI Act, the
letter dated 12/01/2012, addressed by the Special Executive
Officer of the Land Acquisition Office to Public Relation Officer,
reveals that the notice dated 18/09/2001 was received by the
reception of the Corporation on 26/09/2001. The
acknowledgment of the said notice further states that the said
notice was sent to City Engineer Office (Development Plan) for
further action. It is important to note that the letter dated
10/05/2012 of the Special Executive Officer of the Land
Acquisition Office addressed to Additional Collector and
Competent Authority clearly acknowledges that purchase notice
was received by the Pune Municipal Corporation. What further
substantiates receipt of notice is the further mention in the letter
that the acquisition proposal was submitted by the Pune Municipal
Corporation and that subsequently the present Writ Petition No.
18
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
2227 of 2010 was filed by the Society. These materials clearly
make the stand of the Corporation that the notice was never
received, untenable. The responses under the RTI Act are not
disputed. Once there is ample material to demonstrate due service
of notice under Section 127 and considering the correspondence
of the Corporation itself, indicating that it is pursuant to the notice
dated 18/09/2001 received by reception of the Corporation on
26/09/2001 that proceedings were initiated by the Corporation to
acquire the land, it is obvious that the notice was acted upon.
Now for the Corporation to say that the purchase notice was never
received, or that it is not a valid notice under Section 127 or that
the notice is not traceable in the office of the Corporation, apart
from being unfair to the property owner whose land has been
blocked for so long, is an argument which can only be stated to be
rejected. Therefore, we find that notice under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act was duly received by the Corporation on 26/09/2001.
16. The next stand of the learned counsel for the Corporation is
that the notice was not served on the appropriate authority. We
find that the notice addressed to the Commissioner, Pune
Municipal Corporation has been received by the reception.
19
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
Pursuant to the service of the notice, the same was forwarded to
the City Engineer Office (Development Plan) for further action. In
fact, on 02/07/2002, the Standing Committee of respondent no.2
passed a resolution no. 470 resolving to commence the acquisition
proceedings of the subject land. Respondent no.2 – Director of
Town Planning passed a resolution no. 1593 approving the
acquisition proposal of the subject land on the basis of Standing
Committee Resolution No. 470. The Assistant Engineer of the
respondent no. 2 prepared proposal for acquisition in Form B on
10/11/2005. An agreement was executed between the respondent
no. 2 and the respondent no. 1 on 05/06/2007 for acquisition of
the subject land for the purposes of High School. The acquisition
proceedings were not taken to the logical conclusion. The
Corporation clearly understood the notice to be under Section 127.
To take a stand that the notice was not served on the appropriate
authorities despite initiating steps towards acquisition not only
acts unfairly on the petitioner, but the said stand is obviously taken
to defeat the claim of the petitioner on frivolous grounds.
Considering these materials, the objection raised by the
Corporation that the notice is not served on the Planning
20
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
Authority, must fail. The Corporation clearly understood that the
notice issued by the petitioner is under Section 127 of the MRTP
Act and accordingly took further steps for acquiring the said land.
Having taken steps pursuant to the issuance of the purchase notice
under Section 127 towards acquisition of the land, for the
Corporation then to take a stand that the notice was not served on
the Planning Authority, is untenable. We therefore hold that the
notice was duly served on the Planning Authority.
17. The next stand of the learned counsel for the Corporation is
that the notice dated 18/09/2001 being a composite notice, the
same does not accord with the provisions of Section 127 of the
MRPT Act for it to be a valid notice. A plain reading of the notice
indicates that the composite notice was issued by the petitioner to
the Corporation under Section 37 read with Section 127 of the
MRTP Act. The land in question was under reservation for High
School (HS-15) for many years. It was in such circumstances that
the petitioner issued the said notice under Section 37 for changing
the reservation from High School to housing. A request was made
for minor modification of the Development Plan. In the notice it
was indicated by way of abundant caution that the notice dated
21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
18/09/2001 be treated as notice under Section 127 of the MRTP
Act. Section 127 of the MRTP Act as it stood at the relevant time
prior to the amendment is extracted for the facility of reference
which reads thus:
“127. Lapsing of reservations. 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 or
if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under this Act or
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are not commenced within
such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may
serve notice on the planning authority, development authority or as
the case may be, appropriate authority to that effect; and within six
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."
18. In our opinion, so long as the requirements of valid notice
under Section 127 are satisfied, it is hardly of any consequence if
the notice issued to the Corporation is a composite notice.
Moreover, the Corporation has clearly understood it to be notice
under Section 127 of the Act. Section 127 does not prohibit the
issuance of a composite notice. As the notice was served on the
Planning Authority, it therefore proceeded to take steps for
acquisition of the subject land. The ownership of the subject land
or title of the petitioner or that the petitioner has interest in the
22
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
said land is not disputed by the Corporation. The Corporation did
not initiate any steps for acquisition of the land within a period of
6 months from the date of the service of the said notice. Even the
acquisition which commenced after the period of 6 months has not
been taken to the logical conclusion.
19. The objection of the learned counsel for the Corporation that
the service of the said notice was not carried out in the manner
contemplated under Section 136 of MRTP Act can only stated to be
rejected. Once it is seen on the own showing of the Corporation
that by virtue of the letter dated 10/05/2012 addressed to the
Additional Collector and Competent Authority that the
Corporation has received a purchase notice and in fact the notice
was acted upon, the objection regarding service of notice not being
valid must fail. The very purpose of issuing of notice under
Section 127 of the MRPT Act is to ensure that the Corporation
takes appropriate steps for acquiring the land within 6 months and
if no such steps are taken as per the requirement of Section 127,
then such reservation lapses and the land becomes available to the
owner for development/user in accordance with the provisions of
law.
23
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
20. Another objection raised by the petitioner is on the ground of
delay and latches. We have come to the conclusion that a valid
purchase notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act was served and it
is on the Corporation failing to take steps for acquisition of the
subject land within a period of 6 months as stipulated under
Section 127 that the reservation lapsed. Once the consequence of
lapsing attains finality, there is no question of defeating the rights
of a lawful owner on the ground that the petition is belated. In
fact the petitioner waited for a long time obviously because the
Corporation had started the acquisition proceedings. Merely
because the acquisition proceedings did not reach its logical
conclusion, is no reason to deprive the petitioner of the
consequence of the lapsing of reservation. The reservation for all
practical purposes has lapsed by operation of law.
21. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the
Corporation in case of Prafulla C. Dave and ors. (supra) does not
further the case of the Corporation since we find that there is
service of valid purchase notice under Section 127 and therefore
on facts, the case before the Supreme Court is distinguishable.
24
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::

901-wp-2227-10.odt
Ingale
22. The writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the
reservation of the subject land involved in this petition has lapsed
in view of the valid purchase notice issued under Section 127 of
the MRTP Act. It is open for the petitioner to utilise the land and
apply for development permission in terms of the applicable
provisions of law.
23. Since this petition has been allowed, nothing survives for
consideration in Writ Petition No. 5525 of 2016.
24. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending interim
applications stand disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
25
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:41:52 :::