Mere forwarding of an acquisition proposal does not prevent reservation from lapsing under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

The petitioners were co-owners of land bearing Survey No. 434/9A/2/1, corresponding to C.S. No. 2593 (part), situated at Bhosari, Kasarwadi, Pune.

The sanctioned Development Plan for Pimpri-Chinchwad, notified on 18 September 1995, reserved the land for widening a 7.50-metre road.

The land was not acquired within ten years from the Development Plan’s coming into force.

On 27 May 2022, Petitioner No. 1, authorised by the other co-owners through a notarised authority letter dated 20 May 2022, served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”) on the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (“PCMC”).

PCMC replied on 13 December 2023, objecting that the notice was incomplete, that it had been issued by only one co-owner, and that acquisition steps had already commenced through a proposal sent to the Collector on 24 June 2020.

The petitioners contended that no acquisition had been completed and that the statutory period of twenty-four months from service of the purchase notice expired on 28 May 2024.

They therefore sought a declaration that the reservation had lapsed and a direction to the State Government to notify the lapse under Section 127(2).

Whether the reservation of the petitioners’ land for widening a 7.50-metre road lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act because the land was neither acquired nor subjected to legally sufficient acquisition steps within twenty-four months of the purchase notice.

Whether forwarding an acquisition proposal to the Collector, or merely passing a resolution and initiating revision of the Development Plan, constituted “steps” towards acquisition under Section 127.

Whether a purchase notice under Section 127 was invalid because it was not accompanied by a Government measurement map or Development Plan extract.

Whether a purchase notice issued and signed by only one co-owner, pursuant to an authority granted by the other co-owners, was legally valid.

The Court applied Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, under which a reservation, allotment or designation lapses if the land is not acquired within the prescribed period and, after service of a purchase notice, is not acquired or subjected to legally sufficient acquisition steps within twenty-four months; upon such lapse, the land is deemed released and becomes available for development as permissible on adjoining land.

Section 127(2) requires the Government to notify the lapse in the Official Gazette.

Relying on Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, and Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher, (2013) 5 SCC 627, the Court held that “steps” towards acquisition require substantive and active acquisition proceedings, and that merely passing a resolution or sending a letter or proposal to the Collector is insufficient.

The Court further held, relying on Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 750, that courts cannot add requirements to clear statutory language.

Following Ramesh Gopikishan Malani v. State of Maharashtra and Keshav Manikrao Bagal v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that a notice by one co-owner is sufficient and need not be signed by every co-owner.

The ten-year period from the notification of the Development Plan expired on 19 September 2005, while the land remained unacquired.

The purchase notice dated 27 May 2022 validly triggered the twenty-four-month period under Section 127(1), which expired on 28 May 2024.

PCMC’s reliance on its 2017 resolution concerning revision of the Development Plan and its letter dated 24 June 2020 forwarding an acquisition proposal to the Collector did not satisfy the statutory requirement, since neither constituted active acquisition proceedings leading to acquisition of the specific land.

The Court rejected the objections regarding non-attachment of a measurement map and Development Plan extract because Section 127 does not prescribe either document as a mandatory component of the notice.

The objection that only Petitioner No. 1 had signed the notice also failed, since the statute does not require signatures of all co-owners and, in any event, the other petitioners had expressly authorised him by a notarised authority letter.

As neither acquisition nor legally sufficient acquisition steps occurred within the statutory period, the reservation was deemed to have lapsed.

The respondents were directed to publish, within twelve weeks, an Official Gazette notification declaring the lapse of the reservation concerning Survey No. 434/9A/2/1 corresponding to C.S. No. 2593 (part), Village Bhosari, Kasarwadi, Pune.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.