Land dereserved by operation of law cannot be re-reserved in a subsequent development plan.

The Petitioners claimed ownership of 1,500 sq. m. of land bearing Survey No. 14/1/A/3 at Anandwalli, Nashik. Under the Nashik Municipal Corporation Development Plan sanctioned on 16 November 1993, the land was reserved for an electric sub-station under Reservation No. 74 and a post office under Reservation No. 75.

As no steps were taken to acquire the land, the Petitioners served a purchase notice dated 12 December 2006 under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”). The Nashik Municipal Corporation replied on 11 January 2017 that it was not the acquiring body, but did not challenge the validity of the notice.

The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company subsequently withdrew the acquisition proposal because of the high cost of the land.

In an earlier writ petition concerning an adjacent owner affected by the same reservations, the Bombay High Court declared that the reservations had lapsed and directed notification of the lapsing under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act.

Despite this, the Petitioners’ land was again subjected to Reservation No. 244 for public amenities under the Development Plan published on 9 January 2017.

Whether the original reservations for an electric sub-station and post office had lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act after the statutory authorities failed to acquire the land within the prescribed period.

Whether land whose reservation had lapsed by operation of law could subsequently be re-reserved, with some variation in purpose, under a later Development Plan.

Whether the Petitioners were entitled to release of the land from Reservation No. 244 and correction of the municipal and revenue records.

Section 127 of the MRTP Act provides that where land reserved in a Development Plan is not acquired within the statutory period and the owner serves a valid purchase notice, the reservation lapses if acquisition proceedings are not commenced within the prescribed notice period; the land thereafter becomes available to the owner for development as otherwise permissible.

In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., (2003) 1 SCC 111, the Supreme Court held that land cannot again be subjected to the same reservation after the earlier reservation has lapsed.

In Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 1, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that, after the statutory period and purchase-notice period expire without acquisition proceedings, the reservation lapses and cannot be revived through a subsequent modification of the Development Plan.

The Bombay High Court, in Anil Dattatraya Girme v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 1 Bom CR 353, and Trilok Singh Pahlajsingh Rajpal v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2347, further held that land once dereserved by operation of law cannot be reserved again in a revised Development Plan, even with some variation in purpose.

The Court treated the Petitioners’ purchase notice as valid because it had been duly served and the Corporation had not alleged any defect in it.

The absence of acquisition, coupled with the withdrawal of the acquisition proposal by the electricity authority, demonstrated that the original reservations were not acted upon.

The Court also relied on the earlier decision concerning the adjacent land, where the same reservations had been declared lapsed.

Applying the principles in Bhavnagar University, Godrej & Boyce, and the Bombay High Court authorities, the Court held that once the original reservation had ceased by operation of law, the Planning Authority could not circumvent that statutory consequence by imposing a fresh reservation for public amenities over the same land under the 2017 Development Plan.

The land was released from reservation and declared available to the Petitioners for development in accordance with the permissible user and applicable law.

The Respondent authorities were directed to correct the municipal and, if necessary, revenue records to reflect the release of the land from reservation.

The Petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (d).