Malegaon School-Playground Reservation Lapses After Corporation Took No Acquisition Steps Within 24 Months Of Owners’ Notice: Bombay HC

The petitioners’ land—Plots 24 to 38 in Survey No. 68, Malegaon Camp—was reserved for a primary school and playground under Site No. 20 in the Development Plan that came into force on 12 October 2009.

On 13 February 2020, the petitioners served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), which, they asserted, was accompanied by a 7/12 extract.

The Corporation requested further documents by letter dated 26 August 2020; the petitioners did not provide them.

The Corporation neither acquired the land nor commenced acquisition steps within 24 months of the notice.

The petitioners sought a declaration that the reservation had lapsed and that they could develop the land as otherwise permissible.

1. Whether the purchase notice complied with Section 127 despite the Corporation’s claim that further title documents had not been supplied.

2. Whether the reservation lapsed when the Corporation took no acquisition steps within 24 months after service of the purchase notice.

Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, as applicable when the notice was issued, provides that where reserved land has not been acquired within ten years of the relevant plan coming into force, the owner or an interested person may serve a purchase notice, along with documents showing title or interest. If the land is not acquired, or steps for acquisition are not commenced, within 24 months of service, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed and the land becomes available for development as otherwise permissible under the plan.

In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’ Association, 1988 (Supp) SCC 55, the Supreme Court held that the statutory period runs upon service of a valid notice and that the planning authority cannot prevent time from running by demanding information or conducting an investigation into title where a valid notice has been served.

The Court also referred to Chinmay Gurnath Parade v. State of Maharashtra and Yakub Salebhai Contractor v. State of Maharashtra in support of its treatment of Section 127’s notice requirements.

The Court found that the petitioners’ notice identified the land with sufficient clarity and that the petition record showed it was accompanied by the 7/12 extract, which prima facie evidenced their interest in the land.

The Corporation’s demand for further documents did not invalidate the notice or suspend the statutory period; under Hakimwadi, such a demand could not prevent time from running after service of a valid notice.

As the Corporation did not acquire the land or commence acquisition steps within 24 months, the statutory condition for lapsing was met.

It allowed the petition and held that the petitioners could use the land for purposes permissible under the Development Plan; the Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.

The interim application was disposed of following the disposal of the petition.